The will is a rational appetite, that is, a desire consequent upon knowledge. What specifies and individuates will-acts is the cognitive content that gives them direction. This is why reason is called the formal cause of willing; it specifies willing and gives it direction. But will as efficient cause can move mind and other human faculties. We choose to think or not to think about this or that.
Now it might be thought that once mind has specified an object for will, put before it, so to speak, something as good, fulfilling and perfective, the will must necessarily desire that good. What assures the freedom of the will is not that appetite can, as it were, freak out, and opt for something unthought of – a concept of will that has led many to deny that Aristotle had a concept of will. Rather, whatever particular good the mind puts forward as specifying the will falls short of goodness itself. That is, any proposed object of will is a mixed case, comprising negative as well as positive aspects. Because of the inadequacy as good of any object proposed to the will, the will is free in its regard.
Thomas will say that the will cannot not will goodness itself. Moreover, if the mind knew an object that realized perfectly the notion of goodness, the will would necessarily love that object. God is goodness, as we have seen, and thus when we see God as he is, the will will necessarily love him. There is nothing of goodness absent from God, so there would be no reasonable basis for preferring anything else to him.
In this life, we do not see God as he is; consequently God is seen as a good with negative and positive characteristics and we can prefer creatures to God. This is Thomas’s definition of sin.
In the text below, Thomas drives the analysis back to this basic act of the will, its desire for goodness as such. The will is precisely an appetite for goodness. When reason proposes an object to will, this orientation to the good as such is presupposed. Everything we choose must be made to fit under the formality of goodness, that is, be presented as something perfective and fulfilling of us. Considered as a nature, it is of the essence of will to seek goodness itself. The cause of this is the cause of the will’s nature, God. Does God’s causality negate freedom? The following text is rightly considered to be Thomas’s most thorough discussion of this question.
DISPUTED QUESTION ON EVIL
QUESTION 6
Does a man have free choice in his actions or does he choose necessarily?
It seems that he chooses necessarily, not freely.
1. For it is said in Jeremiah 10.23 ‘that the way of a man is not his, neither is it in a man to walk and direct his steps’. But that with respect to which a man has freedom is his, as constituted, as it were, within his dominion. Therefore, it seems that a man does not have free choice of his way or of his acts.
2. It might be objected that this does not refer to the execution of choice, which sometimes is not within a man’s power. On the contrary, there is what the Apostle says in Romans 9.16: ‘So then there is the question not of him who wills or him who runs, but of God showing mercy.’ But running pertains to the external execution of acts and willing to the interior choice. Therefore, not even interior choices are in man’s power, but are in man from God.
3. But it will be said that a man is moved to choice by an inner instinct, namely by God himself, and immovably and that this is not repugnant to freedom. On the contrary, any animal moves himself through appetite, but animals other than man do not have free choice because their appetite is moved by some external agent, for example the power of a heavenly body or by the action of some other body. Therefore, if man’s will is immovably moved by God, it would follow that a man does not have free choice in his actions.
4. Moreover, the cause of the violent is from outside, the thing being acted upon contributing nothing. If then the principle of free choice is from without, namely God, it seems that the will is moved by violence and necessity. Therefore it does not have free choice of its acts.
5. Moreover, it is impossible for man’s will to be out of harmony with the will of God because, as Augustine says in the Enchiridion, either man does what God wills or God fulfils his will concerning him. But God’s will is immutable. Therefore, man’s will is too. Therefore, all human choices proceed from an unchangeable choice.
6. Moreover, the act of any power bears on its own object, as sight bears only on the visible. But the object of will is the good. Therefore, the will can only will the good. Therefore, it necessarily wills the good and does not have free choice of good or evil.
7. Moreover, any power whose object relates to it as mover to moved is a passive power and for it to act is to be acted upon, so sense is a passive power and sensing is a kind of being acted upon because the sensible moves sense. But the object of will relates to it as mover to moved. The Philosopher says in On the Soul 3 and in Metaphysics II that what is desired is a mover not a moved, but appetite is a moved mover. Therefore will is a passive potency and to will a being acted upon. But every passive power is moved necessarily by what activates it, if it is sufficient. It seems, therefore, that the will is necessarily moved by the appetitible. Therefore a man is not free to will or not will.
8. It will be said that there is necessity in the will with respect to the ultimate end, because everyone necessarily wants to be happy, but not with respect to what is for the sake of the end. On the contrary, just as end is the object of will, so too are things which are for the sake of the end, because both have the note of the good. If, therefore, the will is moved necessarily by the end, it would seem to be necessarily moved to those things which are for the sake of the end.
9. Moreover, where there is the same mover and the same moved, there is the same manner of moving. But when one wills the end and the things that are for the sake of the end, the same thing is moved, namely, will, and there is the same mover, because no one wills the things that are for the sake of the end unless he wills the end. Therefore, there is the same manner of moving such that just as one necessarily wills the ultimate end, so he necessarily wills those things that are for the sake of the end.
10. Moreover, just as intellect is a power separated from matter, so too is will. But the intellect is necessarily moved by its object, for man is necessarily moved to assent to a truth by the force of the argument. For the same reason, therefore, will is necessarily moved by its object.
11. Moreover, the disposition of the first mover is felt in those that follow, because all secondary movers move insofar as they are moved by the prime mover. But in the order of voluntary motions, the prime mover is the perceived desirable thing. Since the grasp of what is appetitible comes about with necessity if by a demonstration it is proved to be good, its necessity should affect all subsequent movement, and thus the will is moved to will necessarily and not freely.
12. Moreover, the thing is more of a mover than is intention. But according to the Philosopher in Metaphysics 6, the good is in things, but the true is in the mind, and thus the good is the thing and the true the intention, and thus the good has more the character of mover than does the true. But the true necessarily moves the intellect, as has been said. Therefore, the good necessarily moves the will.
13. Moreover, love, which pertains to will, is a more intense motion than knowledge which pertains to intellect, because knowledge assimilates but love transforms, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4. Therefore, will is more movable than is intellect. If then the intellect is necessarily moved, the will should be even more so.
14. But it will be said that the action of intellect is by a way of a movement towards the soul, but the act of will is by way of movement from the soul, and thus intellect has more of the character of the passive and will of the active, hence the latter is not acted on necessarily by its object. On the contrary, assent pertains to intellect and consent to the will. But assent implies a movement towards the thing assented to just as consent does to the thing consented to. Therefore, the movement of will is no more from the soul than is the movement of intellect.
15. Moreover, if there are things which do not necessarily move the will, the will would have to be said to be ordered to opposites: because that which does not exist necessarily, only possibly exists. But whatever is in potency to opposites becomes actual only through something actual, and we call that which makes a thing actual its cause. Therefore, if will wills something determinately, there must be some cause that makes it will it. Given the cause, however, the effect must follow, as Avicenna proves, because if the cause is given and it is still possible that the effect not be, there would be need of yet another to make it actual, and thus the first is not a sufficient cause. Therefore, will is necessarily moved to will a thing.
16. Moreover, no power that relates to contraries is active because every active power can do that of which it is the cause. But given the possible, the impossible does not follow, for it would be possible for two opposites to exist simultaneously, which is impossible. But the will is an active power, therefore it is not ordered to opposites and necessarily terminates in one thing.
17. Moreover, sometimes the will begins to choose what it did not formerly choose; therefore, either its earlier disposition was changed or it was not. If not, it follows that just as it formerly did not choose, so not now, and thus not choosing it would choose, which is impossible. If however its disposition is changed, it must have been changed by something, because whatever is moved is moved by another. But the mover imposes necessity on the moved, otherwise it would not sufficiently move it. Therefore, the will is necessarily moved.
18. But it will be said that all these arguments move from material potency, which is in matter, and not from the immaterial potency that is in the will. On the contrary, sense is the beginning of all human knowledge, and nothing can be known by man unless it falls under the senses, either itself or its effect. But the very power that is related to opposites does not fall under the senses, for in its effects which do fall under the senses there are not two contrary acts simultaneously existing, but we always find that it proceeds determinately to one act. Therefore, we cannot judge that there is in man any active power relating to opposites.
19. Moreover, since potency is related to act, as act is to act so potency is to potency, but two opposed acts cannot simultaneously exist. Therefore, a potency cannot be related to two opposites.
20. Moreover, according to Augustine in On the Trinity 1, nothing can be the cause of its own being. By parity of reasoning, nothing can be the cause of its own being moved. Therefore, the will does not move itself, but is necessarily moved by another; but it starts to act, previously not acting, and everything of this sort is moved. Hence we say of God that he does not begin to will after having not willed, because of his immutability. Therefore, it is necessary that the will be moved by another, but whatever is moved by another, receives necessity from that other. Therefore, the will wills necessarily and not freely.
21. Moreover, the multiform is reduced to the uniform. But human acts are various and of many forms. Therefore, they should be reduced to the uniform movement of the heaven as to their cause. But whatever is caused by the movement of the heaven comes about necessarily, because a natural cause will produce its effect necessarily unless something impedes it. But nothing can impede the movement of a celestial body such that its effect would not be produced, since the act of the impeding cause would itself have to be reduced back to some celestial principle as its cause. Therefore, it seems that human movements come about necessarily, not from free choice.
22. Moreover, he who does what he does not wish to do does not have free choice; but man does what he does not will; Romans 8.16: ‘The evil that I hate, I do.’ Therefore a man does not have free choice in his actions.
23. Moreover, Augustine says in the Enchiridion that a man who uses his free will badly loses both himself and it. But only one having free will chooses freely. Therefore a man has free choice.
24. Moreover, Augustine says in Confessions 8 that when custom is not resisted it becomes necessity. Therefore it seems that at least among those accustomed to do a thing, the will is moved with necessity.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. There is what is said in Ecclesiasticus 15.14: ‘God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.’ This would not be so if he did not have free choice, which is the desire of what has been previously deliberated about, as is said in Ethics 3. Therefore, man has free choice in his actions.
2. Moreover, rational powers are ordered to opposites, according to the Philosopher, and will is a rational power, for it resides in reason, as is said in On the Soul 3. Therefore, will is related to opposites and is not necessarily moved to one thing.
3. Moreover, according to the Philosopher in Ethics 3, a man is lord of his acts and he has it in him to act and not to act. But this would not be if he did not have free choice in his acts.
RESPONSE:
It should be noted that some held that man’s will is necessarily moved to choose something, although they did not say that the will was forced. For not every necessary event is violent, but only that whose principle is from without; hence there are some natural motions which are necessary but not violent: the violent is opposed to both the natural and the voluntary, each of which has its principle within, whereas the principle of the violent is from without.
But this is a heretical opinion, for it takes away the very notion of merit and demerit from human acts. For what someone does necessarily and cannot avoid doing, seems to be neither meritorious nor the opposite. Therefore this should be numbered among the opinions alien to philosophy, since not only is it contrary to faith but it subverts all the principles of moral philosophy as well. If there is nothing free in us, but we are moved to will necessarily, deliberation, exhortation, precept and punishment, praise and blame, in which moral philosophy consists, are swept away. Such opinions, which destroy the principles of some part of philosophy, are called alien positions: for example, ‘Nothing moves,’ which destroys the principles of natural science. Some men were led to adopt such positions partly from stupidity and partly because of sophistic arguments which they were unable to solve, as is said in Metaphysics 4.
To get to the truth of this matter we must first consider that just as in other things there is a principle of their proper activity, so too is there in man. In man intellect and will are the proper active and moving principle, as is said in On the Soul 3. This principle is in some ways like the active principle of natural things and in some ways unlike.
Alike, indeed, because just as in natural things there is a form that is the principle of action, and an inclination following form, which is called natural appetite, on which action follows, so in man there is an intellective form and the ensuing inclination of will according to the form apprehended, on which the external act follows. But there is this difference, that the form of the natural thing is individuated by matter so that the inclination following it is determined to one, but the understood form is universal and comprises many within it. Hence, since actions are singular and are not equal to a universal power, the inclination of will is indeterminately related to many. Just as when the artisan conceives the general form of house, under which are included different shapes of house, his will can be inclined to make a square house or a round one or one of another shape.
The active principle in brute animals is midway between the two, for the form apprehended by sense is individual like the form of the natural thing and there follows from it therefore an inclination to one as in natural things, but the form received by sense is not always of the same form as exists in natural things, because fire is always hot, but now this fire, now another, and sometimes pleasant and sometimes not, hence sometimes it is sought and at other times avoided and in this it is like the active human principle.
Second, it should be noticed that any power is moved in two ways: in one way, on the part of the subject; in another, on the part of the object. On the part of the subject, as sight sees more or less clearly because of a change in disposition of its organ; on the part of the object, as sight sees now white, now black. The first change pertains to the exercise of the act, namely that one should act or not act, and well or badly; the second change pertains to the specification of the act, for an act is specified by its object.
It should be noted, however, that with natural things the specification of the act is from form and the exercise is from the agent that causes the motion. But the mover moves for the sake of an end. Thus the first principle of motion with respect to the exercise of the act is from the end. However, if we should consider the objects of will and of intellect we would find that the object of intellect is the first principle in the order of formal cause, for its object is being and the true, and the object of will is the first principle in the order of final cause, for its object is the good, which comprises all ends, just as all apprehended forms are included in the true. That is why the good itself, insofar as it is a certain apprehensible form, is contained in the true as a kind of truth, and the true itself, insofar as it is the end of intellectual activity, is contained in the good as a particular good. Therefore, if we should consider the motion of powers of the soul from the side of the object specifying the act, the first principle of motion is from intellect, for in this way good as understood moves even the will itself.
If, however, we were to consider the motions of the powers of the soul from the side of the exercise of the act, then the principle of motion is from will. For the power to which the principal end pertains always moves to action the power to which the means to the end pertain, for example the military art moves the maker of harnesses to act, and in this way will moves both itself and all other powers. For I understand because I will to, and similarly I use all the powers and habits because I want to. Hence the Commentator defines habit in [his commentary on] On the Soul 3 as a habit that one uses when he wishes to.
Well then, in order to show that the will is not moved with necessity, we must consider the movement of will both with respect to the exercise and with respect to the determination of its act, which is from the object. With respect to the exercise of it first, it is first of all manifest that the will is moved by itself, for just as it moves other powers, so does it move itself. Nor does it follow from this that the will is simultaneously potential and actual, for just as a man in understanding moves himself to knowledge in the mode of discovery, insofar as from one actually known thing he goes on to something unknown, which is known only potentially, so by the fact that a man actually wills something, he moves himself actually to will something else; for example, because he wills health, he moves himself to want to take his medicine. From the fact that he wants health, he begins to deliberate about what health requires and having fixed on it by deliberation, he wants to take the medicine. Deliberation, therefore, precedes the will to take medicine, which in turn proceeds from one’s will to deliberate. And since the will moves itself to deliberation, and deliberation is a kind of non-demonstrative inquiry, open to opposites, the will does not move itself necessarily. And since the will does not always will to deliberate, it must be moved by something to want to deliberate, and if by itself, it is necessary that deliberation precede that movement of will and that an act of will precede deliberating. Since this cannot be an infinite regress, it must be acknowledged that, with respect to the first movement of the will, the will of anyone not always actually willing is moved by something outside, by whose instigation the will begins to will.
Some held, accordingly, that this instigation is from a celestial body, but this cannot be, for since will is in reason, according to the Philosopher in On the Soul 3, and intellect’s reason is not a bodily power, it is impossible that the power of a celestial body should move the will directly. It is those who do not distinguish sense from intellect who hold that the wills of men are moved by the impression of a celestial body just as the appetites of brute animals are. The Philosopher refers to them in the same book of On the Soul, when he quotes them as saying that the will of men is such as the father of men and gods makes it, that is, the heaven and the sun.
There remains, then, as Aristotle concludes in the chapter on good fortune, that what first moves will and intellect is something above will and intellect, namely God, who since he moves everything in a way appropriate to what is moved, as the light upward and the heavy downward, moves the will too according to its condition, not by necessity, but as relating indeterminately to many. Therefore it is evident that if the movement of will be considered on the side of the exercise of its act, it is not moved necessarily.
However if the movement of will be considered on the side of the object determining the act of will to this or that, it should be noted that the object moving the will is the apprehended suitable good. Hence, if a good should be proposed which is apprehended as good but not as suitable, it will not move the will. But since deliberations and choices are about particulars, with which acts are concerned, that which is good and suitable has to be apprehended as good and suitable in particular and not only in general. Therefore, if something is grasped as a suitable good in every particular that could be considered, it will necessarily move the will, which is why a man necessarily wants happiness which, as Boethius says, is a perfect state of all goods come together. I say from necessity with respect to the determination of the act, because he cannot will the opposite, but not with respect to the exercise of the act, because one can will now not to think about happiness: the acts of intellect and of will are also particular. Something not found to be good with respect to every possible aspect will not move the will necessarily even with respect to the determination of the act, for one can will its opposite even while thinking of it, perhaps because, considered in one particular, it is suitable, such as the good of health, but it is not pleasant and so forth.
That the will is moved towards that which is offered to it according to this particular condition rather than that can come about in three ways. In one way, insofar as one aspect is preponderant, and then the will is moved according to reason; for example, when a man chooses that which is useful to health because it is useful for pleasure.
In another way, insofar as it thinks of one particular circumstance and not another, and this often happens because something occasions the thought either from within or without.
In a third way, it comes about from a man’s disposition, because, according to the Philosopher, as a person is, so does the end appear to him. Hence the will of an angry man is differently moved to something than is a calm man’s, because the same thing is not suitable to both; so too food is regarded differently by the well and the sick. Therefore, if the disposition because of which something seems good and suitable to someone is natural and not subject to will, the will would choose it by natural necessity, just as all men naturally desire to be, to live and to understand. If however such a disposition is not natural, but subject to will, for example, when someone is disposed by habit or passion in such a way that something seems good or bad to him in this particular, the will is not moved by necessity, because it could remove this disposition so that the thing would not appear as it does; for example, when someone calms his anger so that he does not judge of something as an angry man does. Passion however is more easily removed than habit.
So, then, with respect to some things the will is necessarily moved on the side of the object, but not with respect to everything, but on the side of exercise of its act it is not moved necessarily.
Ad 1. With regard to the first, it ought to be said that such actuality can be understood in two ways. In one way, as the prophet speaks of the execution of choice, for it is not in the power of man that he effectively completes what the mind deliberates. It can be understood in another way insofar as even the interior will is moved by some higher principle, that is, God, and that is what the Apostle means when he says that it is not of the one willing to will or of the runner to run, as a first principle, but from the merciful God.
Ad 2. The solution to the second is thus evident.
Ad 3. It should be said that brute animals are moved by the instigation of a higher agent to something determined in the manner of a particular form on whose conception sense appetite follows. But God moves the will immovably because of the efficacy of a moving power that cannot fail. But because of the nature of the will moved, which relates indifferently to different things, necessity is not induced, but freedom remains. Just as divine providence works infallibly in all things and yet from contingent causes contingent effects are produced, insofar as God moves all things proportionally, each according to its mode.
Ad 4. It should be said that the will contributes something when it is moved by God, for it is will that acts, though moved by God, and therefore although its movement is from outside as from a first principle, it is not violent.
Ad 5. It should be said that man’s will is discordant with the will of God insofar as it wills something God does not want it to will, as when it wills to sin; though God does not want the will to will this, if it so wills God brings it about, for whatever it wills the Lord does. And though in this way man’s will is discordant with the will of God with respect to the movement of will, it can never be discordant with respect to result or event, for a man’s will always chooses that event because God always fulfils his will concerning man. But with respect to the manner of willing it is not necessary that man’s will be conformed to God’s, because God wills whatever he wills eternally and infinitely, but man does not. Because of this, it is said in Isaiah 55.9, ‘For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways.’
Ad 6. It should be said that because good is the object of will, the will can only will under the formality of the good, but because many and diverse things are contained under the formality of the good, it cannot happen that the will is necessarily moved to this or that.
Ad 7. It should be said that the active moves with necessity only when it surpasses the power of what is acted upon. Since will is in potency with respect to the universal good, no good surpasses the power of will as if moving it necessarily unless it be good in every aspect. Only the perfect good is this, namely happiness, which the will cannot not will, by willing its opposite, but it can not actually will, because it can set aside the thought of happiness insofar as it moves the intellect to its act, and in this respect it does not will even happiness necessarily, any more than one is necessarily warmed if he can will to move away from the heat.
Ad 8. It should be said that the end is the reason for willing that which is for the sake of the end. Hence the will does not relate to both in the same way.
Ad 9. It should be said that when there is only one way to reach the end, there is the same reason for willing the end and the means, but that is not the way it is in the example, for one can reach happiness in many ways. Therefore, although a man necessarily wills happiness, he does not necessarily will the things that lead to happiness.
Ad 10. It should be said that there are similarities and dissimilarities between intellect and will. They are dissimilar with respect to the exercise of their acts, for intellect is moved by the will to act, whereas the will is not moved by another power but by itself. On the side of the object there is a similarity between them, for just as will is necessarily moved by an object which is in every aspect good, though not by an object which can be considered good in one respect and bad in another, so too the intellect is necessarily moved by a necessary truth that cannot be taken as false, but not by a contingent truth, which can be taken as false.
Ad 11. It should be said that the disposition of the prime mover remains in the things moved by it insofar as they are moved by it, for thus they receive its likeness, but they do not wholly receive its similitude. Hence though the first principle is immovable, other things are not.
Ad 12. It should be said that because the true is an intention existing in the mind, it has that which is more formal than the good and more causal in the aspect of object, but the good is more causal in the aspect of end, as has been said.
Ad 13. It should be said that love is said to transform the lover into the beloved insofar as the lover is moved by love to the thing loved. Knowledge assimilates insofar as the likeness of the known comes to be in the knower. The former pertains to the imitation, which is from the agent who seeks the end, but the latter pertains to the imitation, which is according to form.
Ad 14. It should be said that assent does not name a movement of the intellect to the thing, but rather to the conception of the thing which is had in the mind, to which the intellect assents, which it judges to be true.
Ad 15. It should be said that not every cause brings about its effect with necessity, even if it is an efficient cause, because a cause can be impeded so that sometimes its effect does not follow. For example, natural causes, which do not produce their effects with necessity but only for the most part, because they can sometimes be impeded. Therefore, the cause that makes the will to will something, need not do this with necessity, because the will can raise an impediment to it, either by putting aside the consideration which induces it to will or by considering the opposite, namely, that that which is proposed as good is in some respects not good.
Ad 16. It should be said that the Philosopher in Metaphysics 6 shows by that means not that some active potency does not relate to contraries, but that the active power that relates to contraries does not produce its effect of necessity. If it did, obviously it would follow that contradictories would simultaneously exist. But if it is given that there is an active power relating to contraries, it does not follow that opposites simultaneously exist, because although both of the opposites to which the power relates are possible, one is not compossible with the other.
Ad 17. It should be said that when the will begins to choose again, it is transmuted from its prior disposition in this respect, that before it was potentially choosing and afterwards it has come actually to choose. And this transmutation is indeed due to some agent, insofar as the will moves itself to act, and also insofar as it is moved by some exterior agent, namely God. But it is not necessarily moved, as has been said.
Ad 18. It should be said that although the principle of human knowledge is in the senses, it is not necessary that whatever a man knows is subject to the senses, or is known immediately through its sensible effect, for intellect understands itself through its act, which is not subject to sense. Similarly, it understands the interior act of the will insofar as the will is in a certain way moved by the act of intellect although in another way the act of intellect is caused by the will, as has been said, as the effect is known through its cause and the cause through its effect. Granted, however, that the power of the will as it relates to opposites cannot be known through any sensible effect, still the argument does not work. For just as the universal, which is everywhere and always, is known by us through singulars, which are here and now, and prime matter which is in potentiality to different forms is known by us through the succession of forms, which are not simultaneously in matter, so the power of the will as it relates to opposites is known by us, not indeed because the opposite acts are simultaneous, but because they successively follow one another from the same principle.
Ad 19. It should be said that the proposition, ‘As act is to act, so is potency to potency,’ is in some ways true and in some ways false. For if act is understood as corresponding equally to potency as its universal object, the proposition is true, for hearing is to seeing as sound is to colour. But if it be understood as something contained under the universal object as a particular act, then the proposition is not true. For the power of seeing is one, but black and white are not the same. Therefore, although the power of will as it relates to opposites is now in man, the opposites to which the will relates are not simultaneous.
Ad 20. It should be said that a thing does not move itself in the same respect that it is moved, but it can move itself according to something else, for thus the intellect, insofar as it actually understands principles, brings itself from potentiality to act with respect to conclusions, and will, insofar as it wills the end, makes itself actual with respect to the things which are for the sake of the end.
Ad 21. It should be said that the movements of will, although they are of many forms, are reduced to some uniform principle, which, however, is not a celestial body, but God, as has been said – if we speak of a principle which directly moves the will. But if we speak of the movement of the will insofar as it is moved occasionally by an exterior sensible object, then the movement of will is reduced to a celestial body. However, the will is not moved with necessity, for it is not necessary that delightful food being presented, the will desires it. Nor is it true that those things which are directly caused by celestial bodies necessarily come about, for as the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 6, if every effect proceeds from some cause and every cause necessarily produces its effect, it would follow that all things are necessary. But both these are false, because some causes, even when they are sufficient, do not necessarily produce their effects, because they can be impeded, as is obvious in all natural causes. Nor again is it true that whatever comes to be has a natural cause; for those things which come to be accidentally do not come about from any active natural cause, because what is accidental is not reduced to a celestial body as to its cause, for the celestial body acts in the manner of a natural agent.
Ad 22. It should be said that he who does what he does not will does not have a free action, but he can have free will.
Ad 23. It should be said that a man by sinning loses free will with respect to the freedom from guilt and misery, but not with respect to freedom from force.
Ad 24. It should be said that custom makes necessity not absolutely, but chiefly in unexpected events, because with deliberation the one accustomed can act contrary to his custom.