A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 53

sant'Agostino d'Ippona (354–430 d.C.) · De spiritu et littera · PL 44, 201–246

53 Volition and Ability PL 44, 234

Some one will ask whether the faith itself, in which seems to be the beginning either of salvation, or of that series leading to salvation which I have just mentioned, is placed in our power. We shall see more easily, if we first examine with some care what “our power” means. Since, then, there are two things,—will and ability; it follows that not every one that has the will has therefore the ability also, nor has every one that possesses the ability the will also; for as we sometimes will what we cannot do, so also we sometimes can do what we do not will. From the words themselves when sufficiently considered, we shall detect, in the very ring of the terms, the derivation of volition from willingness, and of ability from ableness. Therefore, even as the man who wishes has volition, so also the man who can has ability. But in order that a thing may be done by ability, the volition must be present. For no man is usually said to do a thing with ability if he did it unwillingly. Although, at the same time, if we observe more precisely, even what a man is compelled to do unwillingly, he does, if he does it, by his volition; only he is said to be an unwilling agent, or to act against his will, because he would prefer some other thing. He is compelled, indeed, by some unfortunate influence, to do what he does under compulsion, wishing to escape it or to remove it out of his way. For if his volition be so strong that he prefers not doing this to not suffering that, then beyond doubt he resists the compelling influence, and does it not. And accordingly, if he does it, it is not with a full and free will, but yet it is not without will that he does it; and inasmuch as the volition is followed by its effect, we cannot say that he lacked the ability to do it. If, indeed, he willed to do it, yielding to compulsion, but could not, although we should allow that a coerced will was present, we should yet say that ability was absent. But when he did not do the thing because he was unwilling, then of course the ability was present, but the volition was absent, since he did it not, by his resistance to the compelling influence. Hence it is that even they who compel, or who persuade, are accustomed to say, Why don’t you do what you have in your ability, in order to avoid this evil? While they who are utterly unable to do what they are compelled to do, because they are supposed to be able usually answer by excusing themselves, and say, I would do it if it were in my ability. What then do we ask more, since we call that ability when to the volition is added the faculty of doing? Accordingly, every one is said to have that in his ability which he does if he likes, and does not if he dislikes.

Fides an sit in nostra potestate. Quaeret aliquis, utrum fides ipsa, in qua salutis vel ad salutem connexionis hujus, quam commemoravi, esse videtur exordium, in nostra constituta sit potestate: quod facilius videbimus, si prius quid sit potestas aliquanto diligentius perspexerimus. Cum enim duo quaedam sint, velle et posse, unde nec qui vult continuo potest, nec qui potest continuo vult; quia sicut volumus aliquando quod non possumus, sic etiam possumus aliquando quod nolumus: satis evolutis ipsis etiam vocabulis resonat, quod ab eo quod est velle, voluntas; ab eo autem quod est posse potestas nomen accepit. Quapropter, sicut qui vult habet voluntatem, ita potestatem qui potest. Sed ut potestate aliquid fiat, voluntas aderit. Neque enim dici solet quispiam potestate fecisse, si quid fecit invitus. Quanquam, si subtilius advertamus, etiam quod quisque invitus facere cogitur, si facit, voluntate facit: sed quia mallet aliud, ideo invitus, hoc est, nolens facere dicitur. Malo quippe aliquo facere compellitur, quod volens evitare vel a se removere, facit quod cogitur. Nam si tanta voluntas sit, ut malit hoc non facere quam illud non pati; cogenti procul dubio resistit, nec facit. Ac per hoc, si facit; non quidem plena et libera voluntate, sed tamen non facit nisi voluntate: quam voluntatem quia effectus consequitur, non possumus dicere potestatem defuisse facienti. Si enim cogenti cedens vellet facere, nec posset; ei voluntatem adfuisse licet extortam, sed potestatem defuisse diceremus. Cum vero ideo non faciebat, quia nolebat; erat utique potestas, sed voluntas deerat quamdiu cogenti reluctando non fecit. Hinc est quod etiam illi qui cogunt, vel qui suadent, solent dicere: Quod habes in potestate, quare non facis, ut hoc malo careas? Et qui omnino facere non possunt, quod ideo coguntur ut faciant, quia posse creduntur, solent excusando respondere et dicere: Facerem, si esset in potestate. Quid igitur ultra quaerimus; quandoquidem hanc dicimus potestatem, ubi voluntati adjacet facultas faciendi? Unde hoc quisque in potestate habere dicitur, quod si vult, facit; si non vult, non facit.

Philip Schaff (ed.), Buffalo/New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886-1889. Public domain: English translation first published 1885-1900 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series). Latin: Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1855), public domain; transcription from Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich).

Salva per dopo

Inserisci la tua email: ti invieremo un link per accedere. Nessuna password. Ciò che salvi (voci, versetti, capitoli, documenti) ti segue su ogni dispositivo.