SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IIa LXXI-LXVII

Index

Question 61.1 The cardinal virtues
Question 61.2
Question 61.3
Question 61.4
Question 61.5

Question 62.1 The theological virtues
Question 62.2
Question 62.3
Question 62.4

Question 63.1 The cause of virtue
Question 63.2
Question 63.3
Question 63.4

Question 64.1 The mean of virtue
Question 64.2
Question 64.3
Question 64.4

Question 65.1 The connection of virtues
Question 65.2
Question 65.3
Question 65.4
Question 65.5

Question 66.1 Equality among the virtues
Question 66.2
Question 66.3
Question 66.4
Question 66.5
Question 66.6

Question 67.1 The duration of virtues after this life
Question 67.2
Question 67.3
Question 67.4
Question 67.5
Question 67.6

LatinEnglish
q. 61 pr. Deinde considerandum est de virtutibus cardinalibus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum virtutes morales debeant dici cardinales, vel principales. Secundo, de numero earum. Tertio, quae sint. Quarto, utrum differant ab invicem. Quinto, utrum dividantur convenienter in virtutes politicas, et purgatorias, et purgati animi, et exemplares. Question 61. The cardinal virtues Should the moral virtues be called cardinal or principal virtues? Their number Which are they? Do they differ from one another? Are they fittingly divided into social, perfecting, perfect, and exemplar virtues?
q. 61 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales non debeant dici cardinales, seu principales. Quae enim ex opposito dividuntur, sunt simul natura, ut dicitur in praedicamentis, et sic unum non est altero principalius. Sed omnes virtutes ex opposito dividunt genus virtutis. Ergo nullae earum debent dici principales. Objection 1. It would seem that moral virtues should not be called cardinal or principal virtues. For "the opposite members of a division are by nature simultaneous" (Categor. x), so that one is not principal rather than another. Now all the virtues are opposite members of the division of the genus "virtue." Therefore none of them should be called principal.
q. 61 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, finis principalior est his quae sunt ad finem. Sed virtutes theologicae sunt circa finem, virtutes autem morales circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Ergo virtutes morales non debent dici principales, seu cardinales; sed magis theologicae. Objection 2. Further, the end is principal as compared to the means. But the theological virtues are about the end; while the moral virtues are about the means. Therefore the theological virtues, rather than the moral virtues, should be called principal or cardinal.
q. 61 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, principalius est quod est per essentiam, quam quod est per participationem. Sed virtutes intellectuales pertinent ad rationale per essentiam, virtutes autem morales ad rationale per participationem, ut supra dictum est. Ergo virtutes morales non sunt principales, sed magis virtutes intellectuales. Objection 3. Further, that which is essentially so is principal in comparison with that which is so by participation. But the intellectual virtues belong to that which is essentially rational: whereas the moral virtues belong to that which is rational by participation, as stated above (58, 3). Therefore the intellectual virtues are principal, rather than the moral virtues.
q. 61 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, super Lucam, exponens illud, beati pauperes spiritu, scimus virtutes esse quatuor cardinales, scilicet temperantiam, iustitiam, prudentiam, fortitudinem. Hae autem sunt virtutes morales. Ergo virtutes morales sunt cardinales. On the contrary, Ambrose in explaining the words, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Luke 6:20) says: "We know that there are four cardinal virtues, viz. temperance, justice, prudence, and fortitude." But these are moral virtues. Therefore the moral virtues are cardinal virtues.
q. 61 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum simpliciter de virtute loquimur, intelligimur loqui de virtute humana. Virtus autem humana, ut supra dictum est, secundum perfectam rationem virtutis dicitur, quae requirit rectitudinem appetitus, huiusmodi enim virtus non solum facit facultatem bene agendi, sed ipsum etiam usum boni operis causat. Sed secundum imperfectam rationem virtutis dicitur virtus quae non requirit rectitudinem appetitus, quia solum facit facultatem bene agendi, non autem causat boni operis usum. Constat autem quod perfectum est principalius imperfecto. Et ideo virtutes quae continent rectitudinem appetitus, dicuntur principales. Huiusmodi autem sunt virtutes morales; et inter intellectuales, sola prudentia, quae etiam quodammodo moralis est, secundum materiam, ut ex supradictis patet, unde convenienter inter virtutes morales ponuntur illae quae dicuntur principales, seu cardinales. I answer that, When we speak of virtue simply, we are understood to speak of human virtue. Now human virtue, as stated above (Question 56, Article 3), is one that answers to the perfect idea of virtue, which requires rectitude of the appetite: for such like virtue not only confers the faculty of doing well, but also causes the good deed done. On the other hand, the name virtue is applied to one that answers imperfectly to the idea of virtue, and does not require rectitude of the appetite: because it merely confers the faculty of doing well without causing the good deed to be done. Now it is evident that the perfect is principal as compared to the imperfect: and so those virtues which imply rectitude of the appetite are called principal virtues. Such are the moral virtues, and prudence alone, of the intellectual virtues, for it is also something of a moral virtue, as was clearly shown above (Question 57, Article 4). Consequently, those virtues which are called principal or cardinal are fittingly placed among the moral virtues.
q. 61 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quando genus univocum dividitur in suas species, tunc partes divisionis ex aequo se habent secundum rationem generis; licet secundum naturam rei, una species sit principalior et perfectior alia, sicut homo aliis animalibus. Sed quando est divisio alicuius analogi, quod dicitur de pluribus secundum prius et posterius; tunc nihil prohibet unum esse principalius altero, etiam secundum communem rationem; sicut substantia principalius dicitur ens quam accidens. Et talis est divisio virtutum in diversa genera virtutum, eo quod bonum rationis non secundum eundem ordinem invenitur in omnibus. Reply to Objection 1. When a univocal genus is divided into its species, the members of the division are on a par in the point of the generic idea; although considered in their nature as things, one species may surpass another in rank and perfection, as man in respect of other animals. But when we divide an analogous term, which is applied to several things, but to one before it is applied to another, nothing hinders one from ranking before another, even in the point of the generic idea; as the notion of being is applied to substance principally in relation to accident. Such is the division of virtue into various kinds of virtue: since the good defined by reason is not found in the same way in all things.
q. 61 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtutes theologicae sunt supra hominem, ut supra dictum est. Unde non proprie dicuntur virtutes humanae, sed superhumanae, vel divinae. Reply to Objection 2. The theological virtues are above man, as stated above (58, 3, ad 3). Hence they should properly be called not human, but "super-human" or godlike virtues.
q. 61 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum, quod aliae virtutes intellectuales a prudentia, etsi sint principaliores quam morales quantum ad subiectum; non tamen sunt principaliores quantum ad rationem virtutis, quae respicit bonum, quod est obiectum appetitus. Reply to Objection 3. Although the intellectual virtues, except in prudence, rank before the moral virtues, in the point of their subject, they do not rank before them as virtues; for a virtue, as such, regards good, which is the object of the appetite.
q. 61 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint quatuor virtutes cardinales. Prudentia enim est directiva aliarum virtutum moralium, ut ex supradictis patet. Sed id quod est directivum aliorum, principalius est. Ergo prudentia sola est virtus principalis. Objection 1. It would seem that there are not four cardinal virtues. For prudence is the directing principle of the other moral virtues, as is clear from what has been said above (Question 58, Article 4). But that which directs other things ranks before them. Therefore prudence alone is a principal virtue.
q. 61 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutes principales sunt aliquo modo morales. Sed ad operationes morales ordinamur per rationem practicam, et appetitum rectum, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Ergo solae duae virtutes cardinales sunt. Objection 2. Further, the principal virtues are, in a way, moral virtues. Now we are directed to moral works both by the practical reason, and by a right appetite, as stated in Ethic. vi, 2. Therefore there are only two cardinal virtues.
q. 61 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, inter alias etiam virtutes una est principalior altera. Sed ad hoc quod virtus dicatur principalis, non requiritur quod sit principalis respectu omnium, sed respectu quarundam. Ergo videtur quod sint multo plures principales virtutes. Objection 3. Further, even among the other virtues one ranks higher than another. But in order that a virtue be principal, it needs not to rank above all the others, but above some. Therefore it seems that there are many more principal virtues.
q. 61 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in II Moral., in quatuor virtutibus tota boni operis structura consurgit. On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. ii): "The entire structure of good works is built on four virtues."
q. 61 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod numerus aliquorum accipi potest aut secundum principia formalia aut secundum subiecta, et utroque modo inveniuntur quatuor cardinales virtutes. Principium enim formale virtutis de qua nunc loquimur, est rationis bonum. Quod quidem dupliciter potest considerari. Uno modo, secundum quod in ipsa consideratione rationis consistit. Et sic erit una virtus principalis, quae dicitur prudentia. Alio modo, secundum quod circa aliquid ponitur rationis ordo. Et hoc vel circa operationes, et sic est iustitia, vel circa passiones, et sic necesse est esse duas virtutes. Ordinem enim rationis necesse est ponere circa passiones, considerata repugnantia ipsarum ad rationem. Quae quidem potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quod passio impellit ad aliquid contrarium rationi, et sic necesse est quod passio reprimatur, et ab hoc denominatur temperantia. Alio modo, secundum quod passio retrahit ab eo quod ratio dictat, sicut timor periculorum vel laborum, et sic necesse est quod homo firmetur in eo quod est rationis, ne recedat; et ab hoc denominatur fortitudo. Similiter secundum subiecta, idem numerus invenitur. Quadruplex enim invenitur subiectum huius virtutis de qua nunc loquimur, scilicet rationale per essentiam, quod prudentia perficit; et rationale per participationem, quod dividitur in tria; idest in voluntatem, quae est subiectum iustitiae; et in concupiscibilem, quae est subiectum temperantiae; et in irascibilem, quae est subiectum fortitudinis. I answer that, Things may be numbered either in respect of their formal principles, or according to the subjects in which they are: and either way we find that there are four cardinal virtues. For the formal principle of the virtue of which we speak now is good as defined by reason; which good is considered in two ways. First, as existing in the very act of reason: and thus we have one principal virtue, called "Prudence." Secondly, according as the reason puts its order into something else; either into operations, and then we have "Justice"; or into passions, and then we need two virtues. For the need of putting the order of reason into the passions is due to their thwarting reason: and this occurs in two ways. First, by the passions inciting to something against reason, and then the passions need a curb, which we call "Temperance." Secondly, by the passions withdrawing us from following the dictate of reason, e.g. through fear of danger or toil: and then man needs to be strengthened for that which reason dictates, lest he turn back; and to this end there is "Fortitude." In like manner, we find the same number if we consider the subjects of virtue. For there are four subjects of the virtue we speak of now: viz. the power which is rational in its essence, and this is perfected by "Prudence"; and that which is rational by participation, and is threefold, the will, subject of "Justice," the concupiscible faculty, subject of "Temperance," and the irascible faculty, subject of "Fortitude."
q. 61 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod prudentia est simpliciter principalior omnibus. Sed aliae ponuntur principales unaquaeque in suo genere. Reply to Objection 1. Prudence is the principal of all the virtues simply. The others are principal, each in its own genus.
q. 61 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod rationale per participationem dividitur in tria, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. That part of the soul which is rational by participation is threefold, as stated above.
q. 61 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnes aliae virtutes, quarum una est principalior alia, reducuntur ad praedictas quatuor, et quantum ad subiectum, et quantum ad rationes formales. Reply to Objection 3. All the other virtues among which one ranks before another, are reducible to the above four, both as to the subject and as to the formal principle.
q. 61 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliae virtutes debeant dici magis principales quam istae. Id enim quod est maximum in unoquoque genere, videtur esse principalius. Sed magnanimitas operatur magnum in omnibus virtutibus, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Ergo magnanimitas maxime debet dici principalis virtus. Objection 1. It would seem that other virtues should be called principal rather than these. For, seemingly, the greatest is the principal in any genus. Now "magnanimity has a great influence on all the virtues" (Ethic. iv, 3). Therefore magnanimity should more than any be called a principal virtue.
q. 61 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud per quod aliae virtutes firmantur, videtur esse maxime principalis virtus. Sed humilitas est huiusmodi, dicit enim Gregorius quod qui ceteras virtutes sine humilitate congregat, quasi paleas in ventum portat. Ergo humilitas videtur esse maxime principalis. Objection 2. Further, that which strengthens the other virtues should above all be called a principal virtue. But such is humility: for Gregory says (Hom. iv in Ev.) that "he who gathers the other virtues without humility is as one who carries straw against the wind." Therefore humility seems above all to be a principal virtue.
q. 61 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud videtur esse principale, quod est perfectissimum. Sed hoc pertinet ad patientiam; secundum illud Iacobi I, patientia opus perfectum habet. Ergo patientia debet poni principalis. Objection 3. Further, that which is most perfect seems to be principal. But this applies to patience, according to James 1:4: "Patience hath a perfect work." Therefore patience should be reckoned a principal virtue.
q. 61 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Tullius, in sua rhetorica, ad has quatuor omnes alias reducit. On the contrary, Cicero reduces all other virtues to these four (De Invent. Rhet. ii).
q. 61 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est, huiusmodi quatuor virtutes cardinales accipiuntur secundum quatuor formales rationes virtutis de qua loquimur. Quae quidem in aliquibus actibus vel passionibus principaliter inveniuntur. Sicut bonum consistens in consideratione rationis, principaliter invenitur in ipso rationis imperio; non autem in consilio, neque in iudicio, ut supra dictum est. Similiter autem bonum rationis prout ponitur in operationibus secundum rationem recti et debiti, principaliter invenitur in commutationibus vel distributionibus quae sunt ad alterum cum aequalitate. Bonum autem refraenandi passiones principaliter invenitur in passionibus quas maxime difficile est reprimere, scilicet in delectationibus tactus. Bonum autem firmitatis ad standum in bono rationis contra impetum passionum, praecipue invenitur in periculis mortis, contra quae difficillimum est stare. Sic igitur praedictas quatuor virtutes dupliciter considerare possumus. Uno modo, secundum communes rationes formales. Et secundum hoc, dicuntur principales, quasi generales ad omnes virtutes, utputa quod omnis virtus quae facit bonum in consideratione rationis, dicatur prudentia; et quod omnis virtus quae facit bonum debiti et recti in operationibus, dicatur iustitia; et omnis virtus quae cohibet passiones et deprimit, dicatur temperantia; et omnis virtus quae facit firmitatem animi contra quascumque passiones, dicatur fortitudo. Et sic multi loquuntur de istis virtutibus, tam sacri doctores quam etiam philosophi. Et sic aliae virtutes sub ipsis continentur unde cessant omnes obiectiones. Alio vero modo possunt accipi, secundum quod istae virtutes denominantur ab eo quod est praecipuum in unaquaque materia. Et sic sunt speciales virtutes, contra alias divisae. Dicuntur tamen principales respectu aliarum, propter principalitatem materiae, puta quod prudentia dicatur quae praeceptiva est; iustitia, quae est circa actiones debitas inter aequales; temperantia, quae reprimit concupiscentias delectationum tactus; fortitudo, quae firmat contra pericula mortis. I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), these four are reckoned as cardinal virtues, in respect of the four formal principles of virtue as we understand it now. These principles are found chiefly in certain acts and passions. Thus the good which exists in the act of reason, is found chiefly in reason's command, but not in its counsel or its judgment, as stated above (Question 57, Article 6). Again, good as defined by reason and put into our operations as something right and due, is found chiefly in commutations and distributions in respect of another person, and on a basis of equality. The good of curbing the passions is found chiefly in those passions which are most difficult to curb, viz. in the pleasures of touch. The good of being firm in holding to the good defined by reason, against the impulse of passion, is found chiefly in perils of death, which are most difficult to withstand. Accordingly the above four virtues may be considered in two ways. First, in respect of their common formal principles. In this way they are called principal, being general, as it were, in comparison with all the virtues: so that, for instance, any virtue that causes good in reason's act of consideration, may be called prudence; every virtue that causes the good of right and due in operation, be called justice; every virtue that curbs and represses the passions, be called temperance; and every virtue that strengthens the mind against any passions whatever, be called fortitude. Many, both holy doctors, as also philosophers, speak about these virtues in this sense: and in this way the other virtues are contained under them. Wherefore all the objections fail. Secondly, they may be considered in point of their being denominated, each one from that which is foremost in its respective matter, and thus they are specific virtues, condivided with the others. Yet they are called principal in comparison with the other virtues, on account of the importance of their matter: so that prudence is the virtue which commands; justice, the virtue which is about due actions between equals; temperance, the virtue which suppresses desires for the pleasures of touch; and fortitude, the virtue which strengthens against dangers of death.
q. 61 a. 3 ad 1 Et sic etiam cessant obiectiones, quia aliae virtutes possunt habere aliquas alias principalitates, sed istae dicuntur principales ratione materiae, ut supra dictum est. Thus again do the objections fail: because the other virtues may be principal in some other way, but these are called principal by reason of their matter, as stated above.
q. 61 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod quatuor praedictae virtutes non sint diversae virtutes, et ab invicem distinctae. Dicit enim Gregorius, in XXII Moral., prudentia vera non est, quae iusta, temperans et fortis non est; nec perfecta temperantia, quae fortis, iusta et prudens non est; nec fortitudo integra, quae prudens, temperans et iusta non est; nec vera iustitia, quae prudens, fortis et temperans non est. Hoc autem non contingeret, si praedictae quatuor virtutes essent ab invicem distinctae, diversae enim species eiusdem generis non denominant se invicem. Ergo praedictae virtutes non sunt ab invicem distinctae. Objection 1. It would seem that the above four virtues are not diverse and distinct from one another. For Gregory says (Moral. xxii, 1): "There is no true prudence, unless it be just, temperate and brave; no perfect temperance, that is not brave, just and prudent; no sound fortitude, that is not prudent, temperate and just; no real justice, without prudence, fortitude and temperance." But this would not be so, if the above virtues were distinct from one another: since the different species of one genus do not qualify one another. Therefore the aforesaid virtues are not distinct from one another.
q. 61 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, eorum quae ab invicem sunt distincta, quod est unius, non attribuitur alteri. Sed illud quod est temperantiae, attribuitur fortitudini, dicit enim Ambrosius, in I libro de Offic., iure ea fortitudo vocatur, quando unusquisque seipsum vincit, nullis illecebris emollitur atque inflectitur. De temperantia etiam dicit quod modum vel ordinem servat omnium quae vel agenda vel dicenda arbitramur. Ergo videtur quod huiusmodi virtutes non sunt ab invicem distinctae. Objection 2. Further, among things distinct from one another the function of one is not attributed to another. But the function of temperance is attributed to fortitude: for Ambrose says (De Offic. xxxvi): "Rightly do we call it fortitude, when a man conquers himself, and is not weakened and bent by any enticement." And of temperance he says (De Offic. xliii, xlv) that it "safeguards the manner and order in all things that we decide to do and say." Therefore it seems that these virtues are not distinct from one another.
q. 61 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod ad virtutem haec requiruntur, primum quidem, si sciens; deinde, si eligens, et eligens propter hoc; tertium autem, si firme et immobiliter habeat et operetur. Sed horum primum videtur ad prudentiam pertinere, quae est recta ratio agibilium; secundum, scilicet eligere, ad temperantiam, ut aliquis non ex passione, sed ex electione agat, passionibus refraenatis; tertium, ut aliquis propter debitum finem operetur, rectitudinem quandam continet, quae videtur ad iustitiam pertinere aliud, scilicet firmitas et immobilitas, pertinet ad fortitudinem. Ergo quaelibet harum virtutum est generalis ad omnes virtutes. Ergo non distinguuntur ad invicem. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 4) that the necessary conditions of virtue are first of all "that a man should have knowledge; secondly, that he should exercise choice for a particular end; thirdly, that he should possess the habit and act with firmness and steadfastness." But the first of these seems to belong to prudence which is rectitude of reason in things to be done; the second, i.e. choice, belongs to temperance, whereby a man, holding his passions on the curb, acts, not from passion but from choice; the third, that a man should act for the sake of a due end, implies a certain rectitude, which seemingly belongs to justice; while the last, viz. firmness and steadfastness, belongs to fortitude. Therefore each of these virtues is general in comparison to other virtues. Therefore they are not distinct from one another.
q. 61 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccles., quod quadripartita dicitur virtus, ex ipsius amoris vario affectu, et subiungit de praedictis quatuor virtutibus. Praedictae ergo quatuor virtutes sunt ab invicem distinctae. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xi) that "there are four virtues, corresponding to the various emotions of love," and he applies this to the four virtues mentioned above. Therefore the same four virtues are distinct from one another.
q. 61 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, praedictae quatuor virtutes dupliciter a diversis accipiuntur. Quidam enim accipiunt eas, prout significant quasdam generales conditiones humani animi, quae inveniuntur in omnibus virtutibus, ita scilicet quod prudentia nihil sit aliud quam quaedam rectitudo discretionis in quibuscumque actibus vel materiis; iustitia vero sit quaedam rectitudo animi, per quam homo operatur quod debet in quacumque materia; temperantia vero sit quaedam dispositio animi quae modum quibuscumque passionibus vel operationibus imponit, ne ultra debitum efferantur; fortitudo vero sit quaedam dispositio animae per quam firmetur in eo quod est secundum rationem, contra quoscumque impetus passionum vel operationum labores. Haec autem quatuor sic distincta, non important diversitatem habituum virtuosorum quantum ad iustitiam, temperantiam et fortitudinem. Cuilibet enim virtuti morali, ex hoc quod est habitus, convenit quaedam firmitas, ut a contrario non moveatur, quod dictum est ad fortitudinem pertinere. Ex hoc vero quod est virtus, habet quod ordinetur ad bonum, in quo importatur ratio recti vel debiti, quod dicebatur ad iustitiam pertinere. In hoc vero quod est virtus moralis rationem participans, habet quod modum rationis in omnibus servet, et ultra se non extendat, quod dicebatur pertinere ad temperantiam. Solum autem hoc quod est discretionem habere, quod attribuebatur prudentiae, videtur distingui ab aliis tribus, inquantum hoc est ipsius rationis per essentiam; alia vero tria important quandam participationem rationis, per modum applicationis cuiusdam ad passiones vel operationes. Sic igitur, secundum praedicta, prudentia quidem esset virtus distincta ab aliis tribus, sed aliae tres non essent virtutes distinctae ab invicem; manifestum est enim quod una et eadem virtus et est habitus, et est virtus, et est moralis. Alii vero, et melius, accipiunt has quatuor virtutes secundum quod determinantur ad materias speciales; unaquaeque quidem illarum ad unam materiam, in qua principaliter laudatur illa generalis conditio a qua nomen virtutis accipitur, ut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc, manifestum est quod praedictae virtutes sunt diversi habitus, secundum diversitatem obiectorum distincti. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), these four virtues are understood differently by various writers. For some take them as signifying certain general conditions of the human mind, to be found in all the virtues: so that, to wit, prudence is merely a certain rectitude of discretion in any actions or matters whatever; justice, a certain rectitude of the mind, whereby a man does what he ought in any matters; temperance, a disposition of the mind, moderating any passions or operations, so as to keep them within bounds; and fortitude, a disposition whereby the soul is strengthened for that which is in accord with reason, against any assaults of the passions, or the toil involved by any operations. To distinguish these four virtues in this way does not imply that justice, temperance and fortitude are distinct virtuous habits: because it is fitting that every moral virtue, from the fact that it is a "habit," should be accompanied by a certain firmness so as not to be moved by its contrary: and this, we have said, belongs to fortitude. Moreover, inasmuch as it is a "virtue," it is directed to good which involves the notion of right and due; and this, we have said, belongs to justice. Again, owing to the fact that it is a "moral virtue" partaking of reason, it observes the mode of reason in all things, and does not exceed its bounds, which has been stated to belong to temperance. It is only in the point of having discretion, which we ascribed to prudence, that there seems to be a distinction from the other three, inasmuch as discretion belongs essentially to reason; whereas the other three imply a certain share of reason by way of a kind of application (of reason) to passions or operations. According to the above explanation, then, prudence would be distinct from the other three virtues: but these would not be distinct from one another; for it is evident that one and the same virtue is both habit, and virtue, and moral virtue. Others, however, with better reason, take these four virtues, according as they have their special determinate matter; each of its own matter, in which special commendation is given to that general condition from which the virtue's name is taken as stated above (Article 3). In this way it is clear that the aforesaid virtues are distinct habits, differentiated in respect of their diverse objects.
q. 61 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius loquitur de praedictis quatuor virtutibus secundum primam acceptionem. Vel potest dici quod istae quatuor virtutes denominantur ab invicem per redundantiam quandam. Id enim quod est prudentiae, redundat in alias virtutes, inquantum a prudentia diriguntur. Unaquaeque vero aliarum redundat in alias ea ratione, quod qui potest quod est difficilius, potest et id quod minus est difficile. Unde qui potest refraenare concupiscentias delectabilium secundum tactum, ne modum excedant, quod est difficillimum; ex hoc ipso redditur habilior ut refraenet audaciam in periculis mortis, ne ultra modum procedat, quod est longe facilius; et secundum hoc, fortitudo dicitur temperata. Temperantia etiam dicitur fortis, ex redundantia fortitudinis in temperantiam, inquantum scilicet ille qui per fortitudinem habet animum firmum contra pericula mortis, quod est difficillimum, est habilior ut retineat animi firmitatem contra impetus delectationum; quia, ut dicit Tullius in I de Offic., non est consentaneum ut qui metu non frangitur, cupiditate frangatur; nec qui invictum se a labore praestiterit, vinci a voluptate. Reply to Objection 1. Gregory is speaking of these four virtues in the first sense given above. It may also be said that these four virtues qualify one another by a kind of overflow. For the qualities of prudence overflow on to the other virtues in so far as they are directed by prudence. And each of the others overflows on to the rest, for the reason that whoever can do what is harder, can do what is less difficult. Wherefore whoever can curb his desires for the pleasures of touch, so that they keep within bounds, which is a very hard thing to do, for this very reason is more able to check his daring in dangers of death, so as not to go too far, which is much easier; and in this sense fortitude is said to be temperate. Again, temperance is said to be brave, by reason of fortitude overflowing into temperance: in so far, to wit, as he whose mind is strengthened by fortitude against dangers of death, which is a matter of very great difficulty, is more able to remain firm against the onslaught of pleasures; for as Cicero says (De Offic. i), "it would be inconsistent for a man to be unbroken by fear, and yet vanquished by cupidity; or that he should be conquered by lust, after showing himself to be unconquered by toil."
q. 61 a. 4 ad 2 Et per hoc etiam patet responsio ad secundum. Sic enim temperantia in omnibus modum servat, et fortitudo contra illecebras voluptatum animum servat inflexum, vel inquantum istae virtutes denominant quasdam generales conditiones virtutum; vel per redundantiam praedictam. From this the Reply to the Second Objection is clear. For temperance observes the mean in all things, and fortitude keeps the mind unbent by the enticements of pleasures, either in so far as these virtues are taken to denote certain general conditions of virtue, or in the sense that they overflow on to one another, as explained above.
q. 61 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illae quatuor generales virtutum conditiones quas ponit philosophus, non sunt propriae praedictis virtutibus. Sed possunt eis appropriari, secundum modum iam dictum. Reply to Objection 3. These four general conditions of virtue set down by the Philosopher, are not proper to the aforesaid virtues. They may, however, be appropriated to them, in the way above stated.
q. 61 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter huiusmodi quatuor virtutes dividantur in virtutes exemplares, purgati animi, purgatorias, et politicas. Ut enim Macrobius dicit, in I super somnium Scipionis, virtutes exemplares sunt quae in ipsa divina mente consistunt. Sed philosophus, in X Ethic., dicit quod ridiculum est Deo iustitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam et prudentiam attribuere. Ergo virtutes huiusmodi non possunt esse exemplares. Objection 1. It would seem that these four virtues are unfittingly divided into exemplar virtues, perfecting virtues, perfect virtues, and social virtues. For as Macrobius says (Super Somn. Scip. 1), the "exemplar virtues are such as exist in the mind of God." Now the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that "it is absurd to ascribe justice, fortitude, temperance, and prudence to God." Therefore these virtues cannot be exemplar.
q. 61 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutes purgati animi dicuntur quae sunt absque passionibus, dicit enim ibidem Macrobius quod temperantiae purgati animi est terrenas cupiditates non reprimere, sed penitus oblivisci; fortitudinis autem passiones ignorare, non vincere. Dictum est autem supra quod huiusmodi virtutes sine passionibus esse non possunt. Ergo huiusmodi virtutes purgati animi esse non possunt. Objection 2. Further, the "perfect" virtues are those which are without any passion: for Macrobius says (Super Somn. Scip. 1) that "in a soul that is cleansed, temperance has not to check worldly desires, for it has forgotten all about them: fortitude knows nothing about the passions; it does not have to conquer them." Now it was stated above (Question 59, Article 5) that the aforesaid virtues cannot be without passions. Therefore there is no such thing as "perfect" virtue.
q. 61 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtutes purgatorias dicit esse eorum qui quadam humanorum fuga solis se inserunt divinis. Sed hoc videtur esse vitiosum, dicit enim Tullius, in I de Offic., quod qui despicere se dicunt ea quae plerique mirantur imperia et magistratus, his non modo non laudi, verum etiam vitio dandum puto. Ergo non sunt aliquae virtutes purgatoriae. Objection 3. Further, he says (Macrobius: Super Somn. Scip. 1) that the "perfecting" virtues are those of the man "who flies from human affairs and devotes himself exclusively to the things of God." But it seems wrong to do this, for Cicero says (De Offic. i): "I reckon that it is not only unworthy of praise, but wicked for a man to say that he despises what most men admire, viz. power and office." Therefore there are no "perfecting" virtues.
q. 61 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, virtutes politicas esse dicit quibus boni viri reipublicae consulunt, urbesque tuentur. Sed ad bonum commune sola iustitia legalis ordinatur; ut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic. Ergo aliae virtutes non debent dici politicae. Objection 4. Further, he says (Macrobius: Super Somn. Scip. 1) that the "social" virtues are those "whereby good men work for the good of their country and for the safety of the city." But it is only legal justice that is directed to the common weal, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 1). Therefore other virtues should not be called "social."
q. 61 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Macrobius ibidem dicit, Plotinus, inter philosophiae professores cum Platone princeps, quatuor sunt, inquit, quaternarum genera virtutum. Ex his primae politicae vocantur; secundae, purgatoriae; tertiae autem, iam purgati animi; quartae, exemplares. On the contrary, Macrobius says (Super Somn. Scip. 1): "Plotinus, together with Plato foremost among teachers of philosophy, says: 'The four kinds of virtue are fourfold: In the first place there are social virtues; secondly, there are perfecting virtues Virtutes purgatoriae: literally meaning, cleansing virtues; thirdly, there are perfect Virtutes purgati animi: literally, virtues of the clean soul virtues; and fourthly, there are exemplar virtues.'" Cf. Chrysostom's fifteenth homily on St. Matthew, where he says: "The gentle, the modest, the merciful, the just man does not shut up his good deeds within himself . . . He that is clean of heart and peaceful, and suffers persecution for the sake of the truth, lives for the common weal."
q. 61 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro de moribus Eccles., oportet quod anima aliquid sequatur, ad hoc quod ei possit virtus innasci, et hoc Deus est, quem si sequimur, bene vivimus. Oportet igitur quod exemplar humanae virtutis in Deo praeexistat, sicut et in eo praeexistunt omnium rerum rationes. Sic igitur virtus potest considerari vel prout est exemplariter in Deo, et sic dicuntur virtutes exemplares. Ita scilicet quod ipsa divina mens in Deo dicatur prudentia; temperantia vero, conversio divinae intentionis ad seipsum, sicut in nobis temperantia dicitur per hoc quod concupiscibilis conformatur rationi; fortitudo autem Dei est eius immutabilitas; iustitia vero Dei est observatio legis aeternae in suis operibus, sicut Plotinus dixit. Et quia homo secundum suam naturam est animal politicum, virtutes huiusmodi, prout in homine existunt secundum conditionem suae naturae, politicae vocantur, prout scilicet homo secundum has virtutes recte se habet in rebus humanis gerendis. Secundum quem modum hactenus de his virtutibus locuti sumus. Sed quia ad hominem pertinet ut etiam ad divina se trahat quantum potest, ut etiam philosophus dicit, in X Ethic.; et hoc nobis in sacra Scriptura multipliciter commendatur, ut est illud Matth. V, estote perfecti, sicut et pater vester caelestis perfectus est, necesse est ponere quasdam virtutes medias inter politicas, quae sunt virtutes humanae, et exemplares, quae sunt virtutes divinae. Quae quidem virtutes distinguuntur secundum diversitatem motus et termini. Ita scilicet quod quaedam sunt virtutes transeuntium et in divinam similitudinem tendentium, et hae vocantur virtutes purgatoriae. Ita scilicet quod prudentia omnia mundana divinorum contemplatione despiciat, omnemque animae cogitationem in divina sola dirigat; temperantia vero relinquat, inquantum natura patitur, quae corporis usus requirit; fortitudinis autem est ut anima non terreatur propter excessum a corpore, et accessum ad superna; iustitia vero est ut tota anima consentiat ad huius propositi viam. Quaedam vero sunt virtutes iam assequentium divinam similitudinem, quae vocantur virtutes iam purgati animi. Ita scilicet quod prudentia sola divina intueatur; temperantia terrenas cupiditates nesciat; fortitudo passiones ignoret; iustitia cum divina mente perpetuo foedere societur, eam scilicet imitando. Quas quidem virtutes dicimus esse beatorum, vel aliquorum in hac vita perfectissimorum. I answer that, As Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. vi), "the soul needs to follow something in order to give birth to virtue: this something is God: if we follow Him we shall live aright." Consequently the exemplar of human virtue must needs pre-exist in God, just as in Him pre-exist the types of all things. Accordingly virtue may be considered as existing originally in God, and thus we speak of "exemplar" virtues: so that in God the Divine Mind itself may be called prudence; while temperance is the turning of God's gaze on Himself, even as in us it is that which conforms the appetite to reason. God's fortitude is His unchangeableness; His justice is the observance of the Eternal Law in His works, as Plotinus states (Cf. Macrobius, Super Somn. Scip. 1). Again, since man by his nature is a social [See above note on Chrysostom] animal, these virtues, in so far as they are in him according to the condition of his nature, are called "social" virtues; since it is by reason of them that man behaves himself well in the conduct of human affairs. It is in this sense that we have been speaking of these virtues until now. But since it behooves a man to do his utmost to strive onward even to Divine things, as even the Philosopher declares in Ethic. x, 7, and as Scripture often admonishes us--for instance: "Be ye . . . perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48), we must needs place some virtues between the social or human virtues, and the exemplar virtues which are Divine. Now these virtues differ by reason of a difference of movement and term: so that some are virtues of men who are on their way and tending towards the Divine similitude; and these are called "perfecting" virtues. Thus prudence, by contemplating the things of God, counts as nothing all things of the world, and directs all the thoughts of the soul to God alone: temperance, so far as nature allows, neglects the needs of the body; fortitude prevents the soul from being afraid of neglecting the body and rising to heavenly things; and justice consists in the soul giving a whole-hearted consent to follow the way thus proposed. Besides these there are the virtues of those who have already attained to the Divine similitude: these are called the "perfect virtues." Thus prudence sees nought else but the things of God; temperance knows no earthly desires; fortitude has no knowledge of passion; and justice, by imitating the Divine Mind, is united thereto by an everlasting covenant. Such as the virtues attributed to the Blessed, or, in this life, to some who are at the summit of perfection.
q. 61 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de his virtutibus secundum quod sunt circa res humanas, puta iustitia circa emptiones et venditiones, fortitudo circa timores, temperantia circa concupiscentias. Sic enim ridiculum est eas Deo attribuere. Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher is speaking of these virtues according as they relate to human affairs; for instance, justice, about buying and selling; fortitude, about fear; temperance, about desires; for in this sense it is absurd to attribute them to God.
q. 61 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtutes humanae sunt circa passiones, scilicet virtutes hominum in hoc mundo conversantium. Sed virtutes eorum qui plenam beatitudinem assequuntur, sunt absque passionibus. Unde Plotinus dicit quod passiones politicae virtutes molliunt, idest ad medium reducunt; secundae, scilicet purgatoriae, auferunt; tertiae, quae sunt purgati animi, obliviscuntur; in quartis, scilicet exemplaribus, nefas est nominari. Quamvis dici possit quod loquitur hic de passionibus secundum quod significant aliquos inordinatos motus. Reply to Objection 2. Human virtues, that is to say, virtues of men living together in this world, are about the passions. But the virtues of those who have attained to perfect bliss are without passions. Hence Plotinus says (Cf. Macrobius, Super Somn. Scip. 1) that "the social virtues check the passions," i.e. they bring them to the relative mean; "the second kind," viz. the perfecting virtues, "uproot them"; "the third kind," viz. the perfect virtues, "forget them; while it is impious to mention them in connection with virtues of the fourth kind," viz. the exemplar virtues. It may also be said that here he is speaking of passions as denoting inordinate emotions.
q. 61 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod deserere res humanas ubi necessitas imponitur, vitiosum est, alias est virtuosum. Unde parum supra Tullius praemittit, his forsitan concedendum est rempublicam non capessentibus, qui excellenti ingenio doctrinae se dederunt; et his qui aut valetudinis imbecillitate, aut aliqua graviori causa impediti, a republica recesserunt; cum eius administrandae potestatem aliis laudemque concederent. Quod consonat ei quod Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, otium sanctum quaerit caritas veritatis; negotium iustum suscipit necessitas caritatis. Quam sarcinam si nullus imponit, percipiendae atque intuendae vacandum est veritati, si autem imponitur, suscipienda est, propter caritatis necessitatem. Reply to Objection 3. To neglect human affairs when necessity forbids is wicked; otherwise it is virtuous. Hence Cicero says a little earlier: "Perhaps one should make allowances for those who by reason of their exceptional talents have devoted themselves to learning; as also to those who have retired from public life on account of failing health, or for some other yet weightier motive; when such men yielded to others the power and renown of authority." This agrees with what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The love of truth demands a hollowed leisure; charity necessitates good works. If no one lays this burden on us we may devote ourselves to the study and contemplation of truth; but if the burden is laid on us it is to be taken up under the pressure of charity."
q. 61 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod sola iustitia legalis directe respicit bonum commune, sed per imperium omnes alias virtutes ad bonum commune trahit, ut in V Ethic. dicit philosophus. Est enim considerandum quod ad politicas virtutes, secundum quod hic dicuntur, pertinet non solum bene operari ad commune, sed etiam bene operari ad partes communis, scilicet ad domum, vel aliquam singularem personam. Reply to Objection 4. Legal justice alone regards the common weal directly: but by commanding the other virtues it draws them all into the service of the common weal, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 1). For we must take note that it concerns the human virtues, as we understand them here, to do well not only towards the community, but also towards the parts of the community, viz. towards the household, or even towards one individual.
q. 62 pr. Deinde considerandum est de virtutibus theologicis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum sint aliquae virtutes theologicae. Secundo, utrum virtutes theologicae distinguantur ab intellectualibus et moralibus. Tertio, quot, et quae sint. Quarto, de ordine earum. Question 62. The theological virtues Are there any theological virtues? Are the theological virtues distinct from the intellectual and moral virtues? How many, and which are they? Their order
q. 62 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint aliquae virtutes theologicae. Ut enim dicitur in VII Physic., virtus est dispositio perfecti ad optimum, dico autem perfectum, quod est dispositum secundum naturam. Sed id quod est divinum, est supra naturam hominis. Ergo virtutes theologicae non sunt virtutes hominis. Objection 1. It would seem that there are not any theological virtues. For according to Phys. vii, text. 17, "virtue is the disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best: and by perfect, I mean that which is disposed according to nature." But that which is Divine is above man's nature. Therefore the theological virtues are not virtues of a man.
q. 62 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutes theologicae dicuntur quasi virtutes divinae. Sed virtutes divinae sunt exemplares, ut dictum est, quae quidem non sunt in nobis, sed in Deo. Ergo virtutes theologicae non sunt virtutes hominis. Objection 2. Further, theological virtues are quasi-Divine virtues. But the Divine virtues are exemplars, as stated above (Question 61, Article 5), which are not in us but in God. Therefore the theological virtues are not virtues of man.
q. 62 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtutes theologicae dicuntur quibus ordinamur in Deum, qui est primum principium et ultimus finis rerum. Sed homo ex ipsa natura rationis et voluntatis, habet ordinem ad primum principium et ultimum finem. Non ergo requiruntur aliqui habitus virtutum theologicarum, quibus ratio et voluntas ordinetur in Deum. Objection 3. Further, the theological virtues are so called because they direct us to God, Who is the first beginning and last end of all things. But by the very nature of his reason and will, man is directed to his first beginning and last end. Therefore there is no need for any habits of theological virtue, to direct the reason and will to God.
q. 62 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod praecepta legis sunt de actibus virtutum. Sed de actibus fidei, spei et caritatis dantur praecepta in lege divina, dicitur enim Eccli. II, qui timetis Deum, credite illi; item, sperate in illum; item, diligite illum. Ergo fides, spes et caritas sunt virtutes in Deum ordinantes. Sunt ergo theologicae. On the contrary, The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue. Now the Divine Law contains precepts about the acts of faith, hope, and charity: for it is written (Sirach 2:8, seqq.): "Ye that fear the Lord believe Him," and again, "hope in Him," and again, "love Him." Therefore faith, hope, and charity are virtues directing us to God. Therefore they are theological virtues.
q. 62 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod per virtutem perficitur homo ad actus quibus in beatitudinem ordinatur, ut ex supradictis patet. Est autem duplex hominis beatitudo sive felicitas, ut supra dictum est. Una quidem proportionata humanae naturae, ad quam scilicet homo pervenire potest per principia suae naturae. Alia autem est beatitudo naturam hominis excedens, ad quam homo sola divina virtute pervenire potest, secundum quandam divinitatis participationem; secundum quod dicitur II Petr. I, quod per Christum facti sumus consortes divinae naturae. Et quia huiusmodi beatitudo proportionem humanae naturae excedit, principia naturalia hominis, ex quibus procedit ad bene agendum secundum suam proportionem, non sufficiunt ad ordinandum hominem in beatitudinem praedictam. Unde oportet quod superaddantur homini divinitus aliqua principia, per quae ita ordinetur ad beatitudinem supernaturalem, sicut per principia naturalia ordinatur ad finem connaturalem, non tamen absque adiutorio divino. Et huiusmodi principia virtutes dicuntur theologicae, tum quia habent Deum pro obiecto, inquantum per eas recte ordinamur in Deum; tum quia a solo Deo nobis infunduntur; tum quia sola divina revelatione, in sacra Scriptura, huiusmodi virtutes traduntur. I answer that, Man is perfected by virtue, for those actions whereby he is directed to happiness, as was explained above (Question 5, Article 7). Now man's happiness is twofold, as was also stated above (Question 5, Article 5). One is proportionate to human nature, a happiness, to wit, which man can obtain by means of his natural principles. The other is a happiness surpassing man's nature, and which man can obtain by the power of God alone, by a kind of participation of the Godhead, about which it is written (2 Peter 1:4) that by Christ we are made "partakers of the Divine nature." And because such happiness surpasses the capacity of human nature, man's natural principles which enable him to act well according to his capacity, do not suffice to direct man to this same happiness. Hence it is necessary for man to receive from God some additional principles, whereby he may be directed to supernatural happiness, even as he is directed to his connatural end, by means of his natural principles, albeit not without Divine assistance. Such like principles are called "theological virtues": first, because their object is God, inasmuch as they direct us aright to God: secondly, because they are infused in us by God alone: thirdly, because these virtues are not made known to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ.
q. 62 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliqua natura potest attribui alicui rei dupliciter. Uno modo, essentialiter, et sic huiusmodi virtutes theologicae excedunt hominis naturam. Alio modo, participative, sicut lignum ignitum participat naturam ignis, et sic quodammodo fit homo particeps divinae naturae, ut dictum est. Et sic istae virtutes conveniunt homini secundum naturam participatam. Reply to Objection 1. A certain nature may be ascribed to a certain thing in two ways. First, essentially: and thus these theological virtues surpass the nature of man. Secondly, by participation, as kindled wood partakes of the nature of fire: and thus, after a fashion, man becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature, as stated above: so that these virtues are proportionate to man in respect of the Nature of which he is made a partaker.
q. 62 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod istae virtutes non dicuntur divinae, sicut quibus Deus sit virtuosus, sed sicut quibus nos efficimur virtuosi a Deo, et in ordine ad Deum. Unde non sunt exemplares, sed exemplatae. Reply to Objection 2. These virtues are called Divine, not as though God were virtuous by reason of them, but because of them God makes us virtuous, and directs us to Himself. Hence they are not exemplar but exemplate virtues.
q. 62 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ad Deum naturaliter ratio et voluntas ordinatur prout est naturae principium et finis, secundum tamen proportionem naturae. Sed ad ipsum secundum quod est obiectum beatitudinis supernaturalis, ratio et voluntas secundum suam naturam non ordinantur sufficienter. Reply to Objection 3. The reason and will are naturally directed to God, inasmuch as He is the beginning and end of nature, but in proportion to nature. But the reason and will, according to their nature, are not sufficiently directed to Him in so far as He is the object of supernatural happiness.
q. 62 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes theologicae non distinguantur a moralibus et intellectualibus. Virtutes enim theologicae, si sunt in anima humana, oportet quod perficiant ipsam vel secundum partem intellectivam vel secundum partem appetitivam. Sed virtutes quae perficiunt partem intellectivam, dicuntur intellectuales, virtutes autem quae perficiunt partem appetitivam, sunt morales. Ergo virtutes theologicae non distinguuntur a virtutibus moralibus et intellectualibus. Objection 1. It would seem that the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues. For the theological virtues, if they be in a human soul, must needs perfect it, either as to the intellective, or as to the appetitive part. Now the virtues which perfect the intellective part are called intellectual; and the virtues which perfect the appetitive part, are called moral. Therefore, the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.
q. 62 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutes theologicae dicuntur quae ordinant nos ad Deum. Sed inter intellectuales virtutes est aliqua quae ordinat nos ad Deum, scilicet sapientia, quae est de divinis, utpote causam altissimam considerans. Ergo virtutes theologicae ab intellectualibus virtutibus non distinguuntur. Objection 2. Further, the theological virtues are those which direct us to God. Now, among the intellectual virtues there is one which directs us to God: this is wisdom, which is about Divine things, since it considers the highest cause. Therefore the theological virtues are not distinct from the intellectual virtues.
q. 62 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccles., manifestat in quatuor virtutibus cardinalibus quod sunt ordo amoris. Sed amor est caritas, quae ponitur virtus theologica. Ergo virtutes morales non distinguuntur a theologicis. Objection 3. Further, Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv) shows how the four cardinal virtues are the "order of love." Now love is charity, which is a theological virtue. Therefore the moral virtues are not distinct from the theological.
q. 62 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, id quod est supra naturam hominis, distinguitur ab eo quod est secundum naturam hominis. Sed virtutes theologicae sunt super naturam hominis, cui secundum naturam conveniunt virtutes intellectuales et morales, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo distinguuntur ab invicem. On the contrary, That which is above man's nature is distinct from that which is according to his nature. But the theological virtues are above man's nature; while the intellectual and moral virtues are in proportion to his nature, as clearly shown above (Question 58, Article 3). Therefore they are distinct from one another.
q. 62 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, habitus specie distinguuntur secundum formalem differentiam obiectorum. Obiectum autem theologicarum virtutum est ipse Deus, qui est ultimus rerum finis, prout nostrae rationis cognitionem excedit. Obiectum autem virtutum intellectualium et moralium est aliquid quod humana ratione comprehendi potest. Unde virtutes theologicae specie distinguuntur a moralibus et intellectualibus. I answer that, As stated above (54, 2, ad 1), habits are specifically distinct from one another in respect of the formal difference of their objects. Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.
q. 62 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutes intellectuales et morales perficiunt intellectum et appetitum hominis secundum proportionem naturae humanae, sed theologicae supernaturaliter. Reply to Objection 1. The intellectual and moral virtues perfect man's intellect and appetite according to the capacity of human nature; the theological virtues, supernaturally.
q. 62 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sapientia quae a philosopho ponitur intellectualis virtus, considerat divina secundum quod sunt investigabilia ratione humana. Sed theologica virtus est circa ea secundum quod rationem humanam excedunt. Reply to Objection 2. The wisdom which the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3,7) reckons as an intellectual virtue, considers Divine things so far as they are open to the research of human reason. Theological virtue, on the other hand, is about those same things so far as they surpass human reason.
q. 62 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet caritas sit amor, non tamen omnis amor est caritas. Cum ergo dicitur quod omnis virtus est ordo amoris, potest intelligi vel de amore communiter dicto; vel de amore caritatis. Si de amore communiter dicto, sic dicitur quaelibet virtus esse ordo amoris, inquantum ad quamlibet cardinalium virtutum requiritur ordinata affectio, omnis autem affectionis radix et principium est amor, ut supra dictum est. Si autem intelligatur de amore caritatis, non datur per hoc intelligi quod quaelibet alia virtus essentialiter sit caritas, sed quod omnes aliae virtutes aliqualiter a caritate dependeant, ut infra patebit. Reply to Objection 3. Though charity is love, yet love is not always charity. When, then, it is stated that every virtue is the order of love, this can be understood either of love in the general sense, or of the love of charity. If it be understood of love, commonly so called, then each virtue is stated to be the order of love, in so far as each cardinal virtue requires ordinate emotions; and love is the root and cause of every emotion, as stated above (27, 4; 28, 6, ad 2; 41, 2, ad 1). If, however, it be understood of the love of charity, it does not mean that every other virtue is charity essentially: but that all other virtues depend on charity in some way, as we shall show further on (65, A2,5; II-II, 23, 7).
q. 62 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter ponantur tres virtutes theologicae, fides, spes et caritas. Virtutes enim theologicae se habent in ordine ad beatitudinem divinam, sicut inclinatio naturae ad finem connaturalem. Sed inter virtutes ordinatas ad finem connaturalem, ponitur una sola virtus naturalis, scilicet intellectus principiorum. Ergo debet poni una sola virtus theologica. Objection 1. It would seem that faith, hope, and charity are not fittingly reckoned as three theological virtues. For the theological virtues are in relation to Divine happiness, what the natural inclination is in relation to the connatural end. Now among the virtues directed to the connatural end there is but one natural virtue, viz. the understanding of principles. Therefore there should be but one theological virtue.
q. 62 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, theologicae virtutes sunt perfectiores virtutibus intellectualibus et moralibus. Sed inter intellectuales virtutes fides non ponitur, sed est aliquid minus virtute, cum sit cognitio imperfecta. Similiter etiam inter virtutes morales non ponitur spes, sed est aliquid minus virtute, cum sit passio. Ergo multo minus debent poni virtutes theologicae. Objection 2. Further, the theological virtues are more perfect than the intellectual and moral virtues. Now faith is not reckoned among the intellectual virtues, but is something less than a virtue, since it is imperfect knowledge. Likewise hope is not reckoned among the moral virtues, but is something less than a virtue, since it is a passion. Much less therefore should they be reckoned as theological virtues.
q. 62 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtutes theologicae ordinant animam hominis ad Deum. Sed ad Deum non potest anima hominis ordinari nisi per intellectivam partem, in qua est intellectus et voluntas. Ergo non debent esse nisi duae virtutes theologicae, una quae perficiat intellectum, alia quae perficiat voluntatem. Objection 3. Further, the theological virtues direct man's soul to God. Now man's soul cannot be directed to God, save through the intellective part, wherein are the intellect and will. Therefore there should be only two theological virtues, one perfecting the intellect, the other, the will.
q. 62 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas, tria haec. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:13): "Now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three."
q. 62 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtutes theologicae hoc modo ordinant hominem ad beatitudinem supernaturalem, sicut per naturalem inclinationem ordinatur homo in finem sibi connaturalem. Hoc autem contingit secundum duo. Primo quidem, secundum rationem vel intellectum, inquantum continet prima principia universalia cognita nobis per naturale lumen intellectus, ex quibus procedit ratio tam in speculandis quam in agendis. Secundo, per rectitudinem voluntatis naturaliter tendentis in bonum rationis. Sed haec duo deficiunt ab ordine beatitudinis supernaturalis; secundum illud I ad Cor. II, oculus non vidit, et auris non audivit, et in cor hominis non ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus diligentibus se. Unde oportuit quod quantum ad utrumque, aliquid homini supernaturaliter adderetur, ad ordinandum ipsum in finem supernaturalem. Et primo quidem, quantum ad intellectum, adduntur homini quaedam principia supernaturalia, quae divino lumine capiuntur, et haec sunt credibilia, de quibus est fides. Secundo vero, voluntas ordinatur in illum finem et quantum ad motum intentionis, in ipsum tendentem sicut in id quod est possibile consequi, quod pertinet ad spem, et quantum ad unionem quandam spiritualem, per quam quodammodo transformatur in illum finem, quod fit per caritatem. Appetitus enim uniuscuiusque rei naturaliter movetur et tendit in finem sibi connaturalem, et iste motus provenit ex quadam conformitate rei ad suum finem. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the theological virtues direct man to supernatural happiness in the same way as by the natural inclination man is directed to his connatural end. Now the latter happens in respect of two things. First, in respect of the reason or intellect, in so far as it contains the first universal principles which are known to us by the natural light of the intellect, and which are reason's starting-point, both in speculative and in practical matters. Secondly, through the rectitude of the will which tends naturally to good as defined by reason. But these two fall short of the order of supernatural happiness, according to 1 Corinthians 2:9: "The eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him." Consequently in respect of both the above things man needed to receive in addition something supernatural to direct him to a supernatural end. First, as regards the intellect, man receives certain supernatural principles, which are held by means of a Divine light: these are the articles of faith, about which is faith. Secondly, the will is directed to this end, both as to that end as something attainable--and this pertains to hope--and as to a certain spiritual union, whereby the will is, so to speak, transformed into that end--and this belongs to charity. For the appetite of a thing is moved and tends towards its connatural end naturally; and this movement is due to a certain conformity of the thing with its end.
q. 62 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectus indiget speciebus intelligibilibus, per quas intelligat, et ideo oportet quod in eo ponatur aliquis habitus naturalis superadditus potentiae. Sed ipsa natura voluntatis sufficit ad naturalem ordinem in finem, sive quantum ad intentionem finis, sive quantum ad conformitatem ad ipsum. Sed in ordine ad ea quae supra naturam sunt, ad nihil horum sufficit natura potentiae. Et ideo oportet fieri superadditionem habitus supernaturalis quantum ad utrumque. Reply to Objection 1. The intellect requires intelligible species whereby to understand: consequently there is need of a natural habit in addition to the power. But the very nature of the will suffices for it to be directed naturally to the end, both as to the intention of the end and as to its conformity with the end. But the nature of the power is insufficient in either of these respects, for the will to be directed to things that are above its nature. Consequently there was need for an additional supernatural habit in both respects.
q. 62 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod fides et spes imperfectionem quandam important, quia fides est de his quae non videntur, et spes de his quae non habentur. Unde habere fidem et spem de his quae subduntur humanae potestati, deficit a ratione virtutis. Sed habere fidem et spem de his quae sunt supra facultatem naturae humanae, excedit omnem virtutem homini proportionatam; secundum illud I ad Cor. I, quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus. Reply to Objection 2. Faith and hope imply a certain imperfection: since faith is of things unseen, and hope, of things not possessed. Hence faith and hope, in things that are subject to human power, fall short of the notion of virtue. But faith and hope in things which are above the capacity of human nature surpass all virtue that is in proportion to man, according to 1 Corinthians 1:25: "The weakness of God is stronger than men."
q. 62 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ad appetitum duo pertinent, scilicet motus in finem; et conformatio ad finem per amorem. Et sic oportet quod in appetitu humano duae virtutes theologicae ponantur, scilicet spes et caritas. Reply to Objection 3. Two things pertain to the appetite, viz. movement to the end, and conformity with the end by means of love. Hence there must needs be two theological virtues in the human appetite, namely, hope and charity.
q. 62 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit hic ordo theologicarum virtutum, quod fides sit prior spe, et spes prior caritate. Radix enim est prior eo quod est ex radice. Sed caritas est radix omnium virtutum; secundum illud ad Ephes. III, in caritate radicati et fundati. Ergo caritas est prior aliis. Objection 1. It would seem that the order of the theological virtues is not that faith precedes hope, and hope charity. For the root precedes that which grows from it. Now charity is the root of all the virtues, according to Ephesians 3:17: "Being rooted and founded in charity." Therefore charity precedes the others.
q. 62 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in I de Doct. Christ., non potest aliquis diligere quod esse non crediderit. Porro si credit et diligit, bene agendo efficit ut etiam speret. Ergo videtur quod fides praecedat caritatem, et caritas spem. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i): "A man cannot love what he does not believe to exist. But if he believes and loves, by doing good works he ends in hoping." Therefore it seems that faith precedes charity, and charity hope.
q. 62 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, amor est principium omnis affectionis, ut supra dictum est. Sed spes nominat quandam affectionem; est enim quaedam passio, ut supra dictum est. Ergo caritas, quae est amor, est prior spe. Objection 3. Further, love is the principle of all our emotions, as stated above (2, ad 3). Now hope is a kind of emotion, since it is a passion, as stated above (Question 25, Article 2). Therefore charity, which is love, precedes hope.
q. 62 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est ordo quo apostolus ista enumerat, dicens, nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas. On the contrary, The Apostle enumerates them thus (1 Corinthians 13:13): "Now there remain faith, hope, charity."
q. 62 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est ordo, scilicet generationis, et perfectionis. Ordine quidem generationis, quo materia est prior forma, et imperfectum perfecto, in uno et eodem; fides praecedit spem, et spes caritatem, secundum actus (nam habitus simul infunduntur). Non enim potest in aliquid motus appetitivus tendere vel sperando vel amando, nisi quod est apprehensum sensu aut intellectu. Per fidem autem apprehendit intellectus ea quae sperat et amat. Unde oportet quod, ordine generationis, fides praecedat spem et caritatem. Similiter autem ex hoc homo aliquid amat, quod apprehendit illud ut bonum suum. Per hoc autem quod homo ab aliquo sperat se bonum consequi posse, reputat ipsum in quo spem habet, quoddam bonum suum. Unde ex hoc ipso quod homo sperat de aliquo, procedit ad amandum ipsum. Et sic, ordine generationis, secundum actus, spes praecedit caritatem. Ordine vero perfectionis, caritas praecedit fidem et spem, eo quod tam fides quam spes per caritatem formatur, et perfectionem virtutis acquirit. Sic enim caritas est mater omnium virtutum et radix, inquantum est omnium virtutum forma, ut infra dicetur. I answer that, Order is twofold: order of generation, and order of perfection. By order of generation, in respect of which matter precedes form, and the imperfect precedes the perfect, in one same subject faith precedes hope, and hope charity, as to their acts: because habits are all infused together. For the movement of the appetite cannot tend to anything, either by hoping or loving, unless that thing be apprehended by the sense or by the intellect. Now it is by faith that the intellect apprehends the object of hope and love. Hence in the order of generation, faith precedes hope and charity. In like manner a man loves a thing because he apprehends it as his good. Now from the very fact that a man hopes to be able to obtain some good through someone, he looks on the man in whom he hopes as a good of his own. Hence for the very reason that a man hopes in someone, he proceeds to love him: so that in the order of generation, hope precedes charity as regards their respective acts. But in the order of perfection, charity precedes faith and hope: because both faith and hope are quickened by charity, and receive from charity their full complement as virtues. For thus charity is the mother and the root of all the virtues, inasmuch as it is the form of them all, as we shall state further on (II-II, 23, 8).
q. 62 a. 4 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
q. 62 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur de spe qua quis sperat ex meritis iam habitis se ad beatitudinem perventurum, quod est spei formatae, quae sequitur caritatem. Potest autem aliquis sperare antequam habeat caritatem, non ex meritis quae iam habet, sed quae sperat se habiturum. Reply to Objection 2. Augustine is speaking of that hope whereby a man hopes to obtain bliss through the merits which he has already: this belongs to hope quickened by and following charity. But it is possible for a man before having charity, to hope through merits not already possessed, but which he hopes to possess.
q. 62 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, cum de passionibus ageretur, spes respicit duo. Unum quidem sicut principale obiectum, scilicet bonum quod speratur. Et respectu huius, semper amor praecedit spem, nunquam enim speratur aliquod bonum nisi desideratum et amatum. Respicit etiam spes illum a quo se sperat posse consequi bonum. Et respectu huius, primo quidem spes praecedit amorem; quamvis postea ex ipso amore spes augeatur. Per hoc enim quod aliquis reputat per aliquem se posse consequi aliquod bonum, incipit amare ipsum, et ex hoc ipso quod ipsum amat, postea fortius de eo sperat. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Question 40, Article 7), in treating of the passions, hope regards two things. One as its principal object, viz. the good hoped for. With regard to this, love always precedes hope: for good is never hoped for unless it be desired and loved. Hope also regards the person from whom a man hopes to be able to obtain some good. With regard to this, hope precedes love at first; though afterwards hope is increased by love. Because from the fact that a man thinks that he can obtain a good through someone, he begins to love him: and from the fact that he loves him, he then hopes all the more in him.
q. 63 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causa virtutum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum virtus sit in nobis a natura. Secundo, utrum aliqua virtus causetur in nobis ex assuetudine operum. Tertio, utrum aliquae virtutes morales sint in nobis per infusionem. Quarto, utrum virtus quam acquirimus ex assuetudine operum, sit eiusdem speciei cum virtute infusa. Question 63. The cause of virtues Is virtue in us by nature? Is any virtue caused in us by habituation? Are any moral virtues in us by infusion? Is virtue acquired by habituation, of the same species as infused virtue?
q. 63 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus sit in nobis a natura. Dicit enim Damascenus, in III libro, naturales sunt virtutes, et aequaliter insunt omnibus. Et Antonius dicit, in sermone ad monachos, si naturam voluntas mutaverit, perversitas est; conditio servetur, et virtus est. Et Matth. IV, super illud, circuibat Iesus etc., dicit Glossa, docet naturales iustitias, scilicet castitatem, iustitiam, humilitatem, quas naturaliter habet homo. Objection 1. It would seem that virtue is in us by nature. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14): "Virtues are natural to us and are equally in all of us." And Antony says in his sermon to the monks: "If the will contradicts nature it is perverse, if it follow nature it is virtuous." Moreover, a gloss on Matthew 4:23, "Jesus went about," etc., says: "He taught them natural virtues, i.e. chastity, justice, humility, which man possesses naturally."
q. 63 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, bonum virtutis est secundum rationem esse, ut ex dictis patet. Sed id quod est secundum rationem, est homini naturale, cum ratio sit hominis natura. Ergo virtus inest homini a natura. Objection 2. Further, the virtuous good consists in accord with reason, as was clearly shown above (55, 4, ad 2). But that which accords with reason is natural to man; since reason is part of man's nature. Therefore virtue is in man by nature.
q. 63 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud dicitur esse nobis naturale, quod nobis a nativitate inest. Sed virtutes quibusdam a nativitate insunt, dicitur enim Iob XXXI, ab infantia crevit mecum miseratio, et de utero egressa est mecum. Ergo virtus inest homini a natura. Objection 3. Further, that which is in us from birth is said to be natural to us. Now virtues are in some from birth: for it is written (Job 31:18): "From my infancy mercy grew up with me; and it came out with me from my mother's womb." Therefore virtue is in man by nature.
q. 63 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, id quod inest homini a natura, est omnibus hominibus commune, et non tollitur per peccatum, quia etiam in Daemonibus bona naturalia manent, ut Dionysius dicit, in IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed virtus non inest omnibus hominibus; et abiicitur per peccatum. Ergo non inest homini a natura. On the contrary, Whatever is in man by nature is common to all men, and is not taken away by sin, since even in the demons natural gifts remain, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). But virtue is not in all men; and is cast out by sin. Therefore it is not in man by nature.
q. 63 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa formas corporales, aliqui dixerunt quod sunt totaliter ab intrinseco, sicut ponentes latitationem formarum. Aliqui vero, quod totaliter sint ab extrinseco, sicut ponentes formas corporales esse ab aliqua causa separata. Aliqui vero, quod partim sint ab intrinseco, inquantum scilicet praeexistunt in materia in potentia; et partim ab extrinseco, inquantum scilicet reducuntur ad actum per agens. Ita etiam circa scientias et virtutes, aliqui quidem posuerunt eas totaliter esse ab intrinseco, ita scilicet quod omnes virtutes et scientiae naturaliter praeexistunt in anima; sed per disciplinam et exercitium impedimenta scientiae et virtutis tolluntur, quae adveniunt animae ex corporis gravitate; sicut cum ferrum clarificatur per limationem. Et haec fuit opinio Platonicorum. Alii vero dixerunt quod sunt totaliter ab extrinseco, idest ex influentia intelligentiae agentis, ut ponit Avicenna. Alii vero dixerunt quod secundum aptitudinem scientiae et virtutes sunt in nobis a natura, non autem secundum perfectionem, ut philosophus dicit, in II Ethic. Et hoc verius est. Ad cuius manifestationem, oportet considerare quod aliquid dicitur alicui homini naturale dupliciter, uno modo, ex natura speciei; alio modo, ex natura individui. Et quia unumquodque habet speciem secundum suam formam, individuatur vero secundum materiam; forma vero hominis est anima rationalis, materia vero corpus, id quod convenit homini secundum animam rationalem, est ei naturale secundum rationem speciei; id vero quod est ei naturale secundum determinatam corporis complexionem, est ei naturale secundum naturam individui. Quod enim est naturale homini ex parte corporis secundum speciem, quodammodo refertur ad animam, inquantum scilicet tale corpus est tali animae proportionatum. Utroque autem modo virtus est homini naturalis secundum quandam inchoationem. Secundum quidem naturam speciei, inquantum in ratione homini insunt naturaliter quaedam principia naturaliter cognita tam scibilium quam agendorum, quae sunt quaedam seminalia intellectualium virtutum et moralium; et inquantum in voluntate inest quidam naturalis appetitus boni quod est secundum rationem. Secundum vero naturam individui, inquantum ex corporis dispositione aliqui sunt dispositi vel melius vel peius ad quasdam virtutes, prout scilicet vires quaedam sensitivae actus sunt quarundam partium corporis, ex quarum dispositione adiuvantur vel impediuntur huiusmodi vires in suis actibus, et per consequens vires rationales, quibus huiusmodi sensitivae vires deserviunt. Et secundum hoc, unus homo habet naturalem aptitudinem ad scientiam, alius ad fortitudinem, alius ad temperantiam. Et his modis tam virtutes intellectuales quam morales, secundum quandam aptitudinis inchoationem, sunt in nobis a natura. Non autem consummatio earum. Quia natura determinatur ad unum, consummatio autem huiusmodi virtutum non est secundum unum modum actionis, sed diversimode, secundum diversas materias in quibus virtutes operantur, et secundum diversas circumstantias. Sic ergo patet quod virtutes in nobis sunt a natura secundum aptitudinem et inchoationem, non autem secundum perfectionem, praeter virtutes theologicas, quae sunt totaliter ab extrinseco. I answer that, With regard to corporeal forms, it has been maintained by some that they are wholly from within, by those, for instance, who upheld the theory of "latent forms" [Anaxagoras; Cf. I, 45, 8; 65, 4]. Others held that forms are entirely from without, those, for instance, who thought that corporeal forms originated from some separate cause. Others, however, esteemed that they are partly from within, in so far as they pre-exist potentially in matter; and partly from without, in so far as they are brought into act by the agent. In like manner with regard to sciences and virtues, some held that they are wholly from within, so that all virtues and sciences would pre-exist in the soul naturally, but that the hindrances to science and virtue, which are due to the soul being weighed down by the body, are removed by study and practice, even as iron is made bright by being polished. This was the opinion of the Platonists. Others said that they are wholly from without, being due to the inflow of the active intellect, as Avicenna maintained. Others said that sciences and virtues are within us by nature, so far as we are adapted to them, but not in their perfection: this is the teaching of the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1), and is nearer the truth. To make this clear, it must be observed that there are two ways in which something is said to be natural to a man; one is according to his specific nature, the other according to his individual nature. And, since each thing derives its species from its form, and its individuation from matter, and, again, since man's form is his rational soul, while his matter is his body, whatever belongs to him in respect of his rational soul, is natural to him in respect of his specific nature; while whatever belongs to him in respect of the particular temperament of his body, is natural to him in respect of his individual nature. For whatever is natural to man in respect of his body, considered as part of his species, is to be referred, in a way, to the soul, in so far as this particular body is adapted to this particular soul. In both these ways virtue is natural to man inchoatively. This is so in respect of the specific nature, in so far as in man's reason are to be found instilled by nature certain naturally known principles of both knowledge and action, which are the nurseries of intellectual and moral virtues, and in so far as there is in the will a natural appetite for good in accordance with reason. Again, this is so in respect of the individual nature, in so far as by reason of a disposition in the body, some are disposed either well or ill to certain virtues: because, to wit, certain sensitive powers are acts of certain parts of the body, according to the disposition of which these powers are helped or hindered in the exercise of their acts, and, in consequence, the rational powers also, which the aforesaid sensitive powers assist. In this way one man has a natural aptitude for science, another for fortitude, another for temperance: and in these ways, both intellectual and moral virtues are in us by way of a natural aptitude, inchoatively, but not perfectly, since nature is determined to one, while the perfection of these virtues does not depend on one particular mode of action, but on various modes, in respect of the various matters, which constitute the sphere of virtue's action, and according to various circumstances. It is therefore evident that all virtues are in us by nature, according to aptitude and inchoation, but not according to perfection, except the theological virtues, which are entirely from without.
q. 63 a. 1 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam primae duae rationes procedunt secundum quod seminalia virtutum insunt nobis a natura, inquantum rationales sumus. Tertia vero ratio procedit secundum quod ex naturali dispositione corporis, quam habet ex nativitate, unus habet aptitudinem ad miserendum, alius ad temperate vivendum, alius ad aliam virtutem. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. For the first two argue about the nurseries of virtue which are in us by nature, inasmuch as we are rational beings. The third objection must be taken in the sense that, owing to the natural disposition which the body has from birth, one has an aptitude for pity, another for living temperately, another for some other virtue.
q. 63 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes in nobis causari non possint ex assuetudine operum. Quia super illud Rom. XIV, omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, dicit Glossa Augustini, omnis infidelium vita peccatum est; et nihil est bonum sine summo bono. Ubi deest cognitio veritatis, falsa est virtus etiam in optimis moribus. Sed fides non potest acquiri ex operibus, sed causatur in nobis a Deo; secundum illud Ephes. II, gratia estis salvati per fidem. Ergo nulla virtus potest in nobis acquiri ex assuetudine operum. Objection 1. It would seem that virtues can not be caused in us by habituation. Because a gloss of Augustine [Cf. Lib. Sentent. Prosperi cvi.] commenting on Romans 14:23, "All that is not of faith is sin," says: "The whole life of an unbeliever is a sin: and there is no good without the Sovereign Good. Where knowledge of the truth is lacking, virtue is a mockery even in the best behaved people." Now faith cannot be acquired by means of works, but is caused in us by God, according to Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you are saved through faith." Therefore no acquired virtue can be in us by habituation.
q. 63 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum, cum contrarietur virtuti, non compatitur secum virtutem. Sed homo non potest vitare peccatum nisi per gratiam Dei; secundum illud Sap. VIII, didici quod non possum esse aliter continens, nisi Deus det. Ergo nec virtutes aliquae possunt in nobis causari ex assuetudine operum; sed solum dono Dei. Objection 2. Further, sin and virtue are contraries, so that they are incompatible. Now man cannot avoid sin except by the grace of God, according to Wisdom 8:21: "I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it." Therefore neither can any virtues be caused in us by habituation, but only by the gift of God.
q. 63 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, actus qui sunt in virtutem, deficiunt a perfectione virtutis. Sed effectus non potest esse perfectior causa. Ergo virtus non potest causari ex actibus praecedentibus virtutem. Objection 3. Further, actions which lead toward virtue, lack the perfection of virtue. But an effect cannot be more perfect than its cause. Therefore a virtue cannot be caused by actions that precede it.
q. 63 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod bonum est virtuosius quam malum. Sed ex malis actibus causantur habitus vitiorum. Ergo multo magis ex bonis actibus possunt causari habitus virtutum. On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that good is more efficacious than evil. But vicious habits are caused by evil acts. Much more, therefore, can virtuous habits be caused by good acts.
q. 63 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de generatione habituum ex actibus, supra in generali dictum est. Nunc autem specialiter quantum ad virtutem, considerandum est quod sicut supra dictum est, virtus hominis perficit ipsum ad bonum. Cum autem ratio boni consistat in modo, specie et ordine, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de natura boni; sive in numero, pondere et mensura, ut dicitur Sap. XI, oportet quod bonum hominis secundum aliquam regulam consideretur. Quae quidem est duplex, ut supra dictum est, scilicet ratio humana, et lex divina. Et quia lex divina est superior regula, ideo ad plura se extendit, ita quod quidquid regulatur ratione humana, regulatur etiam lege divina, sed non convertitur. Virtus igitur hominis ordinata ad bonum quod modificatur secundum regulam rationis humanae, potest ex actibus humanis causari, inquantum huiusmodi actus procedunt a ratione, sub cuius potestate et regula tale bonum consistit. Virtus vero ordinans hominem ad bonum secundum quod modificatur per legem divinam, et non per rationem humanam, non potest causari per actus humanos, quorum principium est ratio, sed causatur solum in nobis per operationem divinam. Et ideo, huiusmodi virtutem definiens, Augustinus posuit in definitione virtutis, quam Deus in nobis sine nobis operatur. I answer that, We have spoken above (51, A2,3) in a general way about the production of habits from acts; and speaking now in a special way of this matter in relation to virtue, we must take note that, as stated above (55, A3,4), man's virtue perfects him in relation to good. Now since the notion of good consists in "mode, species, and order," as Augustine states (De Nat. Boni. iii) or in "number, weight, and measure," as expressed in Wisdom 11:21, man's good must needs be appraised with respect to some rule. Now this rule is twofold, as stated above (19, A3,4), viz. human reason and Divine Law. And since Divine Law is the higher rule, it extends to more things, so that whatever is ruled by human reason, is ruled by the Divine Law too; but the converse does not hold. It follows that human virtue directed to the good which is defined according to the rule of human reason can be caused by human acts: inasmuch as such acts proceed from reason, by whose power and rule the aforesaid good is established. On the other hand, virtue which directs man to good as defined by the Divine Law, and not by human reason, cannot be caused by human acts, the principle of which is reason, but is produced in us by the Divine operation alone. Hence Augustine in giving the definition of the latter virtue inserts the words, "which God works in us without us" (Super Ps. 118, Serm. xxvi).
q. 63 a. 2 ad 1 Et de huiusmodi etiam virtutibus prima ratio procedit. It is also of these virtues that the First Objection holds good.
q. 63 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtus divinitus infusa, maxime si in sua perfectione consideretur, non compatitur secum aliquod peccatum mortale. Sed virtus humanitus acquisita potest secum compati aliquem actum peccati, etiam mortalis, quia usus habitus in nobis est nostrae voluntati subiectus, ut supra dictum est; non autem per unum actum peccati corrumpitur habitus virtutis acquisitae; habitui enim non contrariatur directe actus, sed habitus. Et ideo, licet sine gratia homo non possit peccatum mortale vitare, ita quod nunquam peccet mortaliter; non tamen impeditur quin possit habitum virtutis acquirere, per quam a malis operibus abstineat ut in pluribus, et praecipue ab his quae sunt valde rationi contraria. Sunt etiam quaedam peccata mortalia quae homo sine gratia nullo modo potest vitare, quae scilicet directe opponuntur virtutibus theologicis, quae ex dono gratiae sunt in nobis. Hoc tamen infra manifestius fiet. Reply to Objection 2. Mortal sin is incompatible with divinely infused virtue, especially if this be considered in its perfect state. But actual sin, even mortal, is compatible with humanly acquired virtue; because the use of a habit in us is subject to our will, as stated above (Question 49, Article 3): and one sinful act does not destroy a habit of acquired virtue, since it is not an act but a habit, that is directly contrary to a habit. Wherefore, though man cannot avoid mortal sin without grace, so as never to sin mortally, yet he is not hindered from acquiring a habit of virtue, whereby he may abstain from evil in the majority of cases, and chiefly in matters most opposed to reason. There are also certain mortal sins which man can nowise avoid without grace, those, namely, which are directly opposed to the theological virtues, which are in us through the gift of grace. This, however, will be more fully explained later (109, 4).
q. 63 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, virtutum acquisitarum praeexistunt in nobis quaedam semina sive principia, secundum naturam. Quae quidem principia sunt nobiliora virtutibus eorum virtute acquisitis, sicut intellectus principiorum speculabilium est nobilior scientia conclusionum; et naturalis rectitudo rationis est nobilior rectificatione appetitus quae fit per participationem rationis, quae quidem rectificatio pertinet ad virtutem moralem. Sic igitur actus humani, inquantum procedunt ex altioribus principiis, possunt causare virtutes acquisitas humanas. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (1; 51, 1), certain seeds or principles of acquired virtue pre-exist in us by nature. These principles are more excellent than the virtues acquired through them: thus the understanding of speculative principles is more excellent than the science of conclusions, and the natural rectitude of the reason is more excellent than the rectification of the appetite which results through the appetite partaking of reason, which rectification belongs to moral virtue. Accordingly human acts, in so far as they proceed from higher principles, can cause acquired human virtues.
q. 63 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod praeter virtutes theologicas, non sint aliae virtutes nobis infusae a Deo. Ea enim quae possunt fieri a causis secundis, non fiunt immediate a Deo, nisi forte aliquando miraculose, quia, ut Dionysius dicit, lex divinitatis est ultima per media adducere. Sed virtutes intellectuales et morales possunt in nobis causari per nostros actus, ut dictum est. Non ergo convenienter causantur in nobis per infusionem. Objection 1. It would seem that no virtues besides the theological virtues are infused in us by God. Because God does not do by Himself, save perhaps sometimes miraculously, those things that can be done by second causes; for, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), "it is God's rule to bring about extremes through the mean." Now intellectual and moral virtues can be caused in us by our acts, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore it is not reasonable that they should be caused in us by infusion.
q. 63 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, in operibus Dei multo minus est aliquid superfluum quam in operibus naturae. Sed ad ordinandum nos in bonum supernaturale, sufficiunt virtutes theologicae. Ergo non sunt aliae virtutes supernaturales, quas oporteat in nobis causari a Deo. Objection 2. Further, much less superfluity is found in God's works than in the works of nature. Now the theological virtues suffice to direct us to supernatural good. Therefore there are no other supernatural virtues needing to be caused in us by God.
q. 63 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, natura non facit per duo, quod potest facere per unum, et multo minus Deus. Sed Deus inseruit animae nostrae semina virtutum, ut dicit Glossa Heb. I. Ergo non oportet quod alias virtutes in nobis per infusionem causet. Objection 3. Further, nature does not employ two means where one suffices: much less does God. But God sowed the seeds of virtue in our souls, according to a gloss on Hebrews 1 [Cf. Jerome on Galatians 1:15-16]. Therefore it is unfitting for Him to cause in us other virtues by means of infusion.
q. 63 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. VIII, sobrietatem et iustitiam docet, prudentiam et virtutem. On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 8:7): "She teacheth temperance and prudence and justice and fortitude."
q. 63 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod oportet effectus esse suis causis et principiis proportionatos. Omnes autem virtutes tam intellectuales quam morales, quae ex nostris actibus acquiruntur, procedunt ex quibusdam naturalibus principiis in nobis praeexistentibus, ut supra dictum est. Loco quorum naturalium principiorum, conferuntur nobis a Deo virtutes theologicae, quibus ordinamur ad finem supernaturalem, sicut supra dictum est. Unde oportet quod his etiam virtutibus theologicis proportionaliter respondeant alii habitus divinitus causati in nobis, qui sic se habeant ad virtutes theologicas sicut se habent virtutes morales et intellectuales ad principia naturalia virtutum. I answer that, Effects must needs be proportionate to their causes and principles. Now all virtues, intellectual and moral, that are acquired by our actions, arise from certain natural principles pre-existing in us, as above stated (1; 51, 1): instead of which natural principles, God bestows on us the theological virtues, whereby we are directed to a supernatural end, as stated (62, 1). Wherefore we need to receive from God other habits corresponding, in due proportion, to the theological virtues, which habits are to the theological virtues, what the moral and intellectual virtues are to the natural principles of virtue.
q. 63 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquae quidem virtutes morales et intellectuales possunt causari in nobis ex nostris actibus, tamen illae non sunt proportionatae virtutibus theologicis. Et ideo oportet alias, eis proportionatas, immediate a Deo causari. Reply to Objection 1. Some moral and intellectual virtues can indeed be caused in us by our actions: but such are not proportionate to the theological virtues. Therefore it was necessary for us to receive, from God immediately, others that are proportionate to these virtues.
q. 63 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtutes theologicae sufficienter nos ordinant in finem supernaturalem, secundum quandam inchoationem, quantum scilicet ad ipsum Deum immediate. Sed oportet quod per alias virtutes infusas perficiatur anima circa alias res, in ordine tamen ad Deum. Reply to Objection 2. The theological virtues direct us sufficiently to our supernatural end, inchoatively: i.e. to God Himself immediately. But the soul needs further to be perfected by infused virtues in regard to other things, yet in relation to God.
q. 63 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod virtus illorum principiorum naturaliter inditorum, non se extendit ultra proportionem naturae. Et ideo in ordine ad finem supernaturalem, indiget homo perfici per alia principia superaddita. Reply to Objection 3. The power of those naturally instilled principles does not extend beyond the capacity of nature. Consequently man needs in addition to be perfected by other principles in relation to his supernatural end.
q. 63 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes infusae non sint alterius speciei a virtutibus acquisitis. Virtus enim acquisita et virtus infusa, secundum praedicta, non videntur differre nisi secundum ordinem ad ultimum finem. Sed habitus et actus humani non recipiunt speciem ab ultimo fine, sed a proximo. Non ergo virtutes morales vel intellectuales infusae differunt specie ab acquisitis. Objection 1. It would seem that infused virtue does not differ in species from acquired virtue. Because acquired and infused virtues, according to what has been said (3), do not differ seemingly, save in relation to the last end. Now human habits and acts are specified, not by their last, but by their proximate end. Therefore the infused moral or intellectual virtue does not differ from the acquired virtue.
q. 63 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, habitus per actus cognoscuntur. Sed idem est actus temperantiae infusae, et acquisitae, scilicet moderari concupiscentias tactus. Ergo non differunt specie. Objection 2. Further, habits are known by their acts. But the act of infused and acquired temperance is the same, viz. to moderate desires of touch. Therefore they do not differ in species.
q. 63 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtus acquisita et infusa differunt secundum illud quod est immediate a Deo factum, et a creatura. Sed idem est specie homo quem Deus formavit, et quem generat natura; et oculus quem caeco nato dedit, et quem virtus formativa causat. Ergo videtur quod est eadem specie virtus acquisita, et infusa. Objection 3. Further, acquired and infused virtue differ as that which is wrought by God immediately, from that which is wrought by a creature. But the man whom God made, is of the same species as a man begotten naturally; and the eye which He gave to the man born blind, as one produced by the power of generation. Therefore it seems that acquired and infused virtue belong to the same species.
q. 63 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, quaelibet differentia in definitione posita, mutata diversificat speciem. Sed in definitione virtutis infusae ponitur, quam Deus in nobis sine nobis operatur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo virtus acquisita, cui hoc non convenit, non est eiusdem speciei cum infusa. On the contrary, Any change introduced into the difference expressed in a definition involves a difference of species. But the definition of infused virtue contains the words, "which God works in us without us," as stated above (Question 55, Article 4). Therefore acquired virtue, to which these words cannot apply, is not of the same species as infused virtue.
q. 63 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod dupliciter habitus distinguuntur specie. Uno modo, sicut praedictum est, secundum speciales et formales rationes obiectorum. Obiectum autem virtutis cuiuslibet est bonum consideratum in materia propria, sicut temperantiae obiectum est bonum delectabilium in concupiscentiis tactus. Cuius quidem obiecti formalis ratio est a ratione, quae instituit modum in his concupiscentiis, materiale autem est id quod est ex parte concupiscentiarum. Manifestum est autem quod alterius rationis est modus qui imponitur in huiusmodi concupiscentiis secundum regulam rationis humanae, et secundum regulam divinam. Puta in sumptione ciborum, ratione humana modus statuitur ut non noceat valetudini corporis, nec impediat rationis actum, secundum autem regulam legis divinae, requiritur quod homo castiget corpus suum, et in servitutem redigat, per abstinentiam cibi et potus, et aliorum huiusmodi. Unde manifestum est quod temperantia infusa et acquisita differunt specie, et eadem ratio est de aliis virtutibus. Alio modo habitus distinguuntur specie secundum ea ad quae ordinantur, non enim est eadem specie sanitas hominis et equi, propter diversas naturas ad quas ordinantur. Et eodem modo dicit philosophus, in III Polit., quod diversae sunt virtutes civium, secundum quod bene se habent ad diversas politias. Et per hunc etiam modum differunt specie virtutes morales infusae, per quas homines bene se habent in ordine ad hoc quod sint cives sanctorum et domestici Dei; et aliae virtutes acquisitae, secundum quas homo se bene habet in ordine ad res humanas. I answer that, There is a twofold specific difference among habits. The first, as stated above (54, 2; 56, 2; 60, 1), is taken from the specific and formal aspects of their objects. Now the object of every virtue is a good considered as in that virtue's proper matter: thus the object of temperance is a good in respect of the pleasures connected with the concupiscence of touch. The formal aspect of this object is from reason which fixes the mean in these concupiscences: while the material element is something on the part of the concupiscences. Now it is evident that the mean that is appointed in such like concupiscences according to the rule of human reason, is seen under a different aspect from the mean which is fixed according to Divine rule. For instance, in the consumption of food, the mean fixed by human reason, is that food should not harm the health of the body, nor hinder the use of reason: whereas, according to the Divine rule, it behooves man to "chastise his body, and bring it into subjection" (1 Corinthians 9:27), by abstinence in food, drink and the like. It is therefore evident that infused and acquired temperance differ in species; and the same applies to the other virtues. The other specific differences among habits is taken from the things to which they are directed: for a man's health and a horse's are not of the same species, on account of the difference between the natures to which their respective healths are directed. In the same sense, the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3) that citizens have diverse virtues according as they are well directed to diverse forms of government. In the same way, too, those infused moral virtues, whereby men behave well in respect of their being "fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household [Douay: 'domestics'] of God" (Ephesians 2:19), differ from the acquired virtues, whereby man behaves well in respect of human affairs.
q. 63 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtus infusa et acquisita non solum differunt secundum ordinem ad ultimum finem; sed etiam secundum ordinem ad propria obiecta, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Infused and acquired virtue differ not only in relation to the ultimate end, but also in relation to their proper objects, as stated.
q. 63 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod alia ratione modificat concupiscentias delectabilium tactus temperantia acquisita, et temperantia infusa, ut dictum est. Unde non habent eundem actum. Reply to Objection 2. Both acquired and infused temperance moderate desires for pleasures of touch, but for different reasons, as stated: wherefore their respective acts are not identical.
q. 63 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod oculum caeci nati Deus fecit ad eundem actum ad quem formantur alii oculi secundum naturam, et ideo fuit eiusdem speciei. Et eadem ratio esset, si Deus vellet miraculose causare in homine virtutes quales acquiruntur ex actibus. Sed ita non est in proposito, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. God gave the man born blind an eye for the same act as the act for which other eyes are formed naturally: consequently it was of the same species. It would be the same if God wished to give a man miraculously virtues, such as those that are acquired by acts. But the case is not so in the question before us, as stated.
q. 64 pr. Deinde considerandum est de proprietatibus virtutum. Et primo quidem, de medio virtutum; secundo, de connexione virtutum; tertio, de aequalitate earum; quarto, de ipsarum duratione. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum virtutes morales sint in medio. Secundo, utrum medium virtutis moralis sit medium rei, vel rationis. Tertio, utrum intellectuales virtutes consistant in medio. Quarto, utrum virtutes theologicae. Question 64. The mean of virtue Does moral virtue observe the mean? Is the mean of moral virtue the real mean or the rational mean? Do the intellectual virtues observe the mean? Do the theological virtues?
q. 64 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus moralis non consistat in medio. Ultimum enim repugnat rationi medii. Sed de ratione virtutis est ultimum, dicitur enim in I de caelo, quod virtus est ultimum potentiae. Ergo virtus moralis non consistit in medio. Objection 1. It would seem that moral virtue does not observe the mean. For the nature of a mean is incompatible with that which is extreme. Now the nature of virtue is to be something extreme; for it is stated in De Coelo i that "virtue is the limit of power." Therefore moral virtue does not observe the mean.
q. 64 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod est maximum, non est medium. Sed quaedam virtutes morales tendunt in aliquod maximum, sicut magnanimitas est circa maximos honores, et magnificentia circa maximos sumptus, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Ergo non omnis virtus moralis est in medio. Objection 2. Further, the maximum is not a mean. Now some moral virtues tend to a maximum: for instance, magnanimity to very great honors, and magnificence to very large expenditure, as stated in Ethic. iv, 2,3. Therefore not every moral virtue observes the mean.
q. 64 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, si de ratione virtutis moralis sit in medio esse, oportet quod virtus moralis non perficiatur, sed magis corrumpatur, per hoc quod tendit ad extremum. Sed quaedam virtutes morales perficiuntur per hoc quod tendunt ad extremum, sicut virginitas, quae abstinet ab omni delectabili venereo, et sic tenet extremum, et est perfectissima castitas. Et dare omnia pauperibus est perfectissima misericordia vel liberalitas. Ergo videtur quod non sit de ratione virtutis moralis esse in medio. Objection 3. Further, if it is essential to a moral virtue to observe the mean, it follows that a moral virtue is not perfected, but the contrary corrupted, through tending to something extreme. Now some moral virtues are perfected by tending to something extreme; thus virginity, which abstains from all sexual pleasure, observes the extreme, and is the most perfect chastity: and to give all to the poor is the most perfect mercy or liberality. Therefore it seems that it is not essential to moral virtue that it should observe the mean.
q. 64 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod virtus moralis est habitus electivus in medietate existens. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "moral virtue is a habit of choosing the mean."
q. 64 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supradictis patet, virtus de sui ratione ordinat hominem ad bonum. Moralis autem virtus proprie est perfectiva appetitivae partis animae circa aliquam determinatam materiam. Mensura autem et regula appetitivi motus circa appetibilia, est ipsa ratio. Bonum autem cuiuslibet mensurati et regulati consistit in hoc quod conformetur suae regulae, sicut bonum in artificiatis est ut consequantur regulam artis. Malum autem per consequens in huiusmodi est per hoc quod aliquid discordat a sua regula vel mensura. Quod quidem contingit vel per hoc quod superexcedit mensuram, vel per hoc quod deficit ab ea, sicut manifeste apparet in omnibus regulatis et mensuratis. Et ideo patet quod bonum virtutis moralis consistit in adaequatione ad mensuram rationis. Manifestum est autem quod inter excessum et defectum medium est aequalitas sive conformitas. Unde manifeste apparet quod virtus moralis in medio consistit. I answer that, As already explained (55, 3), the nature of virtue is that it should direct man to good. Now moral virtue is properly a perfection of the appetitive part of the soul in regard to some determinate matter: and the measure or rule of the appetitive movement in respect of appetible objects is the reason. But the good of that which is measured or ruled consists in its conformity with its rule: thus the good things made by art is that they follow the rule of art. Consequently, in things of this sort, evil consists in discordance from their rule or measure. Now this may happen either by their exceeding the measure or by their falling short of it; as is clearly the case in all things ruled or measured. Hence it is evident that the good of moral virtue consists in conformity with the rule of reason. Now it is clear that between excess and deficiency the mean is equality or conformity. Therefore it is evident that moral virtue observes the mean.
q. 64 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtus moralis bonitatem habet ex regula rationis, pro materia autem habet passiones vel operationes. Si ergo comparetur virtus moralis ad rationem, sic, secundum id quod rationis est, habet rationem extremi unius, quod est conformitas, excessus vero et defectus habet rationem alterius extremi, quod est difformitas. Si vero consideretur virtus moralis secundum suam materiam, sic habet rationem medii, inquantum passionem reducit ad regulam rationis. Unde philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod virtus secundum substantiam medietas est, inquantum regula virtutis ponitur circa propriam materiam, secundum optimum autem et bene, est extremitas, scilicet secundum conformitatem rationis. Reply to Objection 1. Moral virtue derives goodness from the rule of reason, while its matter consists in passions or operations. If therefore we compare moral virtue to reason, then, if we look at that which is has of reason, it holds the position of one extreme, viz. conformity; while excess and defect take the position of the other extreme, viz. deformity. But if we consider moral virtue in respect of its matter, then it holds the position of mean, in so far as it makes the passion conform to the rule of reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "virtue, as to its essence, is a mean state," in so far as the rule of virtue is imposed on its proper matter: "but it is an extreme in reference to the 'best' and the 'excellent,'" viz. as to its conformity with reason.
q. 64 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod medium et extrema considerantur in actionibus et passionibus secundum diversas circumstantias, unde nihil prohibet in aliqua virtute esse extremum secundum unam circumstantiam, quod tamen est medium secundum alias circumstantias, per conformitatem ad rationem. Et sic est in magnificentia et magnanimitate. Nam si consideretur quantitas absoluta eius in quod tendit magnificus et magnanimus, dicetur extremum et maximum, sed si consideretur hoc ipsum per comparationem ad alias circumstantias, sic habet rationem medii; quia in hoc tendunt huiusmodi virtutes secundum regulam rationis, idest ubi oportet, et quando oportet, et propter quod oportet. Excessus autem, si in hoc maximum tendatur quando non oportet, vel ubi non oportet, vel propter quod non oportet; defectus autem est, si non tendatur in hoc maximum ubi oportet, et quando oportet. Et hoc est quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod magnanimus est quidem magnitudine extremus; eo autem quod ut oportet, medius. Reply to Objection 2. In actions and passions the mean and the extremes depend on various circumstances: hence nothing hinders something from being extreme in a particular virtue as to one circumstance, while the same thing is a mean in respect of other circumstances, through being in conformity with reason. This is the case with magnanimity and magnificence. For if we look at the absolute quantity of the respective objects of these virtues, we shall call it an extreme and a maximum: but if we consider the quantity in relation to other circumstances, then it has the character of a mean: since these virtues tend to this maximum in accordance with the rule of reason, i.e. "where" it is right, "when" it is right, and for an "end" that is right. There will be excess, if one tends to this maximum "when" it is not right, or "where" it is not right, or for an undue "end"; and there will be deficiency if one fails to tend thereto "where" one ought, and "when" one aught. This agrees with the saying of the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3) that the "magnanimous man observes the extreme in quantity, but the mean in the right mode of his action."
q. 64 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod eadem ratio est de virginitate et paupertate, quae est de magnanimitate. Abstinet enim virginitas ab omnibus venereis, et paupertas ab omnibus divitiis, propter quod oportet, et secundum quod oportet; idest secundum mandatum Dei, et propter vitam aeternam. Si autem hoc fiat secundum quod non oportet, idest secundum aliquam superstitionem illicitam, vel etiam propter inanem gloriam; erit superfluum. Si autem non fiat quando oportet, vel secundum quod oportet, est vitium per defectum, ut patet in transgredientibus votum virginitatis vel paupertatis. Reply to Objection 3. The same is to be said of virginity and poverty as of magnanimity. For virginity abstains from all sexual matters, and poverty from all wealth, for a right end, and in a right manner, i.e. according to God's word, and for the sake of eternal life. But if this be done in an undue manner, i.e. out of unlawful superstition, or again for vainglory, it will be in excess. And if it be not done when it ought to be done, or as it ought to be done, it is a vice by deficiency: for instance, in those who break their vows of virginity or poverty.
q. 64 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod medium virtutis moralis non sit medium rationis, sed medium rei. Bonum enim virtutis moralis consistit in hoc quod est in medio. Bonum autem, ut dicitur in VI Metaphys., est in rebus ipsis. Ergo medium virtutis moralis est medium rei. Objection 1. It would seem that the mean of moral virtue is not the rational mean, but the real mean. For the good of moral virtue consists in its observing the mean. Now, good, as stated in Metaph. ii, text. 8, is in things themselves. Therefore the mean of moral virtue is a real mean.
q. 64 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, ratio est vis apprehensiva. Sed virtus moralis non consistit in medio apprehensionum; sed magis in medio operationum et passionum. Ergo medium virtutis moralis non est medium rationis, sed medium rei. Objection 2. Further, the reason is a power of apprehension. But moral virtue does not observe a mean between apprehensions, but rather a mean between operations or passions. Therefore the mean of moral virtue is not the rational, but the real mean.
q. 64 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, medium quod accipitur secundum proportionem arithmeticam vel geometricam, est medium rei. Sed tale est medium iustitiae, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Ergo medium virtutis moralis non est medium rationis, sed rei. Objection 3. Further, a mean that is observed according to arithmetical or geometrical proportion is a real mean. Now such is the mean of justice, as stated in Ethic. v, 3. Therefore the mean of moral virtue is not the rational, but the real mean.
q. 64 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod virtus moralis in medio consistit quoad nos, determinata ratione. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "moral virtue observes the mean fixed, in our regard, by reason."
q. 64 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod medium rationis dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo, secundum quod medium in ipso actu rationis existit, quasi ipse actus rationis ad medium reducatur. Et sic, quia virtus moralis non perficit actum rationis, sed actum virtutis appetitivae; medium virtutis moralis non est medium rationis. Alio modo potest dici medium rationis id quod a ratione ponitur in aliqua materia. Et sic omne medium virtutis moralis est medium rationis, quia, sicut dictum est, virtus moralis dicitur consistere in medio, per conformitatem ad rationem rectam. Sed quandoque contingit quod medium rationis est etiam medium rei, et tunc oportet quod virtutis moralis medium sit medium rei; sicut est in iustitia. Quandoque autem medium rationis non est medium rei, sed accipitur per comparationem ad nos, et sic est medium in omnibus aliis virtutibus moralibus. Cuius ratio est quia iustitia est circa operationes, quae consistunt in rebus exterioribus, in quibus rectum institui debet simpliciter et secundum se, ut supra dictum est, et ideo medium rationis in iustitia est idem cum medio rei, inquantum scilicet iustitia dat unicuique quod debet, et non plus nec minus. Aliae vero virtutes morales consistunt circa passiones interiores, in quibus non potest rectum constitui eodem modo, propter hoc quod homines diversimode se habent ad passiones, et ideo oportet quod rectitudo rationis in passionibus instituatur per respectum ad nos, qui afficimur secundum passiones. I answer that, The rational mean can be understood in two ways. First, according as the mean is observed in the act itself of reason, as though the very act of reason were made to observe the mean: in this sense, since moral virtue perfects not the act of reason, but the act of the appetitive power, the mean of moral virtue is not the rational mean. Secondly, the mean of reason may be considered as that which the reason puts into some particular matter. In this sense every mean of moral virtue is a rational mean, since, as above stated (1), moral virtue is said to observe the mean, through conformity with right reason. But it happens sometimes that the rational mean is also the real mean: in which case the mean of moral virtue is the real mean, for instance, in justice. On the other hand, sometimes the rational mean is not the real mean, but is considered in relation to us: and such is the mean in all the other moral virtues. The reason for this is that justice is about operations, which deal with external things, wherein the right has to be established simply and absolutely, as stated above (Question 60, Article 2): wherefore the rational mean in justice is the same as the real mean, in so far, to wit as justice gives to each one his due, neither more nor less. But the other moral virtues deal with interior passions wherein the right cannot be established in the same way, since men are variously situated in relation to their passions; hence the rectitude of reason has to be established in the passions, with due regard to us, who are moved in respect of the passions.
q. 64 a. 2 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam, primae duae rationes procedunt de medio rationis quod scilicet invenitur in ipso actu rationis. Tertia vero ratio procedit de medio iustitiae. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. For the first two arguments take the rational mean as being in the very act of reason, while the third argues from the mean of justice.
q. 64 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes intellectuales non consistant in medio. Virtutes enim morales consistunt in medio, inquantum conformantur regulae rationis. Sed virtutes intellectuales sunt in ipsa ratione; et sic non videntur habere superiorem regulam. Ergo virtutes intellectuales non consistunt in medio. Objection 1. It would seem that the intellectual virtues do not observe the mean. Because moral virtue observes the mean by conforming to the rule of reason. But the intellectual virtues are in reason itself, so that they seem to have no higher rule. Therefore the intellectual virtues do not observe the mean.
q. 64 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, medium virtutis moralis determinatur a virtute intellectuali, dicitur enim in II Ethic., quod virtus consistit in medietate determinata ratione, prout sapiens determinabit. Si igitur virtus intellectualis iterum consistat in medio, oportet quod determinetur sibi medium per aliquam aliam virtutem. Et sic procedetur in infinitum in virtutibus. Objection 2. Further, the mean of moral virtue is fixed by an intellectual virtue: for it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6, that "virtue observes the mean appointed by reason, as a prudent man would appoint it." If therefore intellectual virtue also observe the mean, this mean will have to be appointed for them by another virtue, so that there would be an indefinite series of virtues.
q. 64 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, medium proprie est inter contraria; ut patet per philosophum, in X Metaphys. Sed in intellectu non videtur esse aliqua contrarietas, cum etiam ipsa contraria, secundum quod sunt in intellectu, non sint contraria, sed simul intelligantur, ut album et nigrum, sanum et aegrum. Ergo in intellectualibus virtutibus non est medium. Objection 3. Further, a mean is, properly speaking, between contraries, as the Philosopher explains (Metaph. x, text. 22,23). But there seems to be no contrariety in the intellect; since contraries themselves, as they are in the intellect, are not in opposition to one another, but are understood together, as white and black, healthy and sick. Therefore there is no mean in the intellectual virtues.
q. 64 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod ars est virtus intellectualis, ut dicitur in VI Ethic.; et tamen artis est aliquod medium, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Ergo etiam virtus intellectualis consistit in medio. On the contrary, Art is an intellectual virtue; and yet there is a mean in art (Ethic. ii, 6). Therefore also intellectual virtue observes the mean.
q. 64 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod bonum alicuius rei consistit in medio, secundum quod conformatur regulae vel mensurae quam contingit transcendere et ab ea deficere, sicut dictum est. Virtus autem intellectualis ordinatur ad bonum, sicut et moralis, ut supra dictum est. Unde secundum quod bonum virtutis intellectualis se habet ad mensuram, sic se habet ad rationem medii. Bonum autem virtutis intellectualis est verum, speculativae quidem virtutis, verum absolute, ut in VI Ethic. dicitur; practicae autem virtutis, verum secundum conformitatem ad appetitum rectum. Verum autem intellectus nostri absolute consideratum, est sicut mensuratum a re, res enim est mensura intellectus nostri, ut dicitur in X Metaphys.; ex eo enim quod res est vel non est, veritas est in opinione et in oratione. Sic igitur bonum virtutis intellectualis speculativae consistit in quodam medio, per conformitatem ad ipsam rem, secundum quod dicit esse quod est, vel non esse quod non est; in quo ratio veri consistit. Excessus autem est secundum affirmationem falsam, per quam dicitur esse quod non est, defectus autem accipitur secundum negationem falsam, per quam dicitur non esse quod est. Verum autem virtutis intellectualis practicae, comparatum quidem ad rem, habet rationem mensurati. Et sic eodem modo accipitur medium per conformitatem ad rem, in virtutibus intellectualibus practicis, sicut in speculativis. Sed respectu appetitus, habet rationem regulae et mensurae. Unde idem medium, quod est virtutis moralis, etiam est ipsius prudentiae, scilicet rectitudo rationis, sed prudentiae quidem est istud medium ut regulantis et mensurantis; virtutis autem moralis, ut mensuratae et regulatae. Similiter excessus et defectus accipitur diversimode utrobique. I answer that, The good of anything consists in its observing the mean, by conforming with a rule or measure in respect of which it may happen to be excessive or deficient, as stated above (Article 1). Now intellectual virtue, like moral virtue, is directed to the good, as stated above (Question 56, Article 3). Hence the good of an intellectual virtue consists in observing the mean, in so far as it is subject to a measure. Now the good of intellectual virtue is the true; in the case of contemplative virtue, it is the true taken absolutely (Ethic. vi, 2); in the case of practical virtue, it is the true in conformity with a right appetite. Now truth apprehended by our intellect, if we consider it absolutely, is measured by things; since things are the measure of our intellect, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 5; because there is truth in what we think or say, according as the thing is so or not. Accordingly the good of speculative intellectual virtue consists in a certain mean, by way of conformity with things themselves, in so far as the intellect expresses them as being what they are, or as not being what they are not: and it is in this that the nature of truth consists. There will be excess if something false is affirmed, as though something were, which in reality it is not: and there will be deficiency if something is falsely denied, and declared not to be, whereas in reality it is. The truth of practical intellectual virtue, if we consider it in relation to things, is by way of that which is measured; so that both in practical and in speculative intellectual virtues, the mean consists in conformity with things. But if we consider it in relation to the appetite, it has the character of a rule and measure. Consequently the rectitude of reason is the mean of moral virtue, and also the mean of prudence--of prudence as ruling and measuring, of moral virtue, as ruled and measured by that mean. In like manner the difference between excess and deficiency is to be applied in both cases.
q. 64 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam virtus intellectualis habet suam mensuram, ut dictum est, et per conformitatem ad ipsam, accipitur in ipsa medium. Reply to Objection 1. Intellectual virtues also have their measure, as stated, and they observe the mean according as they conform to that measure.
q. 64 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non est necesse in infinitum procedere in virtutibus, quia mensura et regula intellectualis virtutis non est aliquod aliud genus virtutis, sed ipsa res. Reply to Objection 2. There is no need for an indefinite series of virtues: because the measure and rule of intellectual virtue is not another kind of virtue, but things themselves.
q. 64 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ipsae res contrariae non habent contrarietatem in anima, quia unum est ratio cognoscendi alterum, et tamen in intellectu est contrarietas affirmationis et negationis, quae sunt contraria, ut dicitur in fine peri hermeneias. Quamvis enim esse et non esse non sint contraria, sed contradictorie opposita, si considerentur ipsa significata prout sunt in rebus, quia alterum est ens, et alterum est pure non ens, tamen si referantur ad actum animae, utrumque ponit aliquid. Unde esse et non esse sunt contradictoria, sed opinio qua opinamur quod bonum est bonum, est contraria opinioni qua opinamur quod bonum non est bonum. Et inter huiusmodi contraria medium est virtus intellectualis. Reply to Objection 3. The things themselves that are contrary have no contrariety in the mind, because one is the reason for knowing the other: nevertheless there is in the intellect contrariety of affirmation and negation, which are contraries, as stated at the end of Peri Hermenias. For though "to be" and "not to be" are not in contrary, but in contradictory opposition to one another, so long as we consider their signification in things themselves, for on the one hand we have "being" and on the other we have simply "non-being"; yet if we refer them to the act of the mind, there is something positive in both cases. Hence "to be" and "not to be" are contradictory: but the opinion stating that "good is good" is contrary to the opinion stating that "good is not good": and between two such contraries intellectual virtue observes the mean.
q. 64 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus theologica consistat in medio. Bonum enim aliarum virtutum consistit in medio. Sed virtus theologica excedit in bonitate alias virtutes. Ergo virtus theologica multo magis est in medio. Objection 1. It would seem that theological virtue observes the mean. For the good of other virtues consists in their observing the mean. Now the theological virtues surpass the others in goodness. Therefore much more does theological virtue observe the mean.
q. 64 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, medium virtutis accipitur, moralis quidem secundum quod appetitus regulatur per rationem; intellectualis vero secundum quod intellectus noster mensuratur a re. Sed virtus theologica et perficit intellectum, et appetitum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo etiam virtus theologica consistit in medio. Objection 2. Further, the mean of moral virtue depends on the appetite being ruled by reason; while the mean of intellectual virtue consists in the intellect being measured by things. Now theological virtue perfects both intellect and appetite, as stated above (Question 62, Article 3). Therefore theological virtue also observes the mean.
q. 64 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, spes quae est virtus theologica, medium est inter desperationem et praesumptionem. Similiter etiam fides incedit media inter contrarias haereses, ut Boetius dicit, in libro de duabus naturis, quod enim confitemur in Christo unam personam et duas naturas, medium est inter haeresim Nestorii, qui dicit duas personas et duas naturas; et haeresim Eutychis, qui dicit unam personam et unam naturam. Ergo virtus theologica consistit in medio. Objection 3. Further, hope, which is a theological virtue, is a mean between despair and presumption. Likewise faith holds a middle course between contrary heresies, as Boethius states (De Duab. Natur. vii): thus, by confessing one Person and two natures in Christ, we observe the mean between the heresy of Nestorius, who maintained the existence of two persons and two natures, and the heresy of Eutyches, who held to one person and one nature. Therefore theological virtue observes the mean.
q. 64 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, in omnibus in quibus consistit virtus in medio, contingit peccare per excessum, sicut et per defectum. Sed circa Deum, qui est obiectum virtutis theologicae, non contingit peccare per excessum, dicitur enim Eccli. XLIII, benedicentes Deum, exaltate illum quantum potestis, maior enim est omni laude. Ergo virtus theologica non consistit in medio. On the contrary, Wherever virtue observes the mean it is possible to sin by excess as well as by deficiency. But there is no sinning by excess against God, Who is the object of theological virtue: for it is written (Sirach 43:33): "Blessing the Lord, exalt Him as much as you can: for He is above all praise." Therefore theological virtue does not observe the mean.
q. 64 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, medium virtutis accipitur per conformitatem ad suam regulam vel mensuram, secundum quod contingit ipsam transcendere vel ab ea deficere. Virtutis autem theologicae duplex potest accipi mensura. Una quidem secundum ipsam rationem virtutis. Et sic mensura et regula virtutis theologicae est ipse Deus, fides enim nostra regulatur secundum veritatem divinam, caritas autem secundum bonitatem eius, spes autem secundum magnitudinem omnipotentiae et pietatis eius. Et ista est mensura excellens omnem humanam facultatem, unde nunquam potest homo tantum diligere Deum quantum diligi debet, nec tantum credere aut sperare in ipsum, quantum debet. Unde multo minus potest ibi esse excessus. Et sic bonum talis virtutis non consistit in medio, sed tanto est melius, quanto magis acceditur ad summum. Alia vero regula vel mensura virtutis theologicae est ex parte nostra, quia etsi non possumus ferri in Deum quantum debemus, debemus tamen ferri in ipsum credendo, sperando et amando, secundum mensuram nostrae conditionis. Unde per accidens potest in virtute theologica considerari medium et extrema, ex parte nostra. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the mean of virtue depends on conformity with virtue's rule or measure, in so far as one may exceed or fall short of that rule. Now the measure of theological virtue may be twofold. One is taken from the very nature of virtue, and thus the measure and rule of theological virtue is God Himself: because our faith is ruled according to Divine truth; charity, according to His goodness; hope, according to the immensity of His omnipotence and loving kindness. This measure surpasses all human power: so that never can we love God as much as He ought to be loved, nor believe and hope in Him as much as we should. Much less therefore can there be excess in such things. Accordingly the good of such virtues does not consist in a mean, but increases the more we approach to the summit. The other rule or measure of theological virtue is by comparison with us: for although we cannot be borne towards God as much as we ought, yet we should approach to Him by believing, hoping and loving, according to the measure of our condition. Consequently it is possible to find a mean and extremes in theological virtue, accidentally and in reference to us.
q. 64 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum virtutum intellectualium et moralium consistit in medio per conformitatem ad regulam vel mensuram quam transcendere contingit. Quod non est in virtutibus theologicis, per se loquendo, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. The good of intellectual and moral virtues consists in a mean of reason by conformity with a measure that may be exceeded: whereas this is not so in the case of theological virtue, considered in itself, as stated above.
q. 64 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtutes morales et intellectuales perficiunt intellectum et appetitum nostrum in ordine ad mensuram et regulam creatam, virtutes autem theologicae in ordine ad mensuram et regulam increatam. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 2. Moral and intellectual virtues perfect our intellect and appetite in relation to a created measure and rule; whereas the theological virtues perfect them in relation to an uncreated rule and measure. Wherefore the comparison fails.
q. 64 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod spes est media inter praesumptionem et desperationem, ex parte nostra, inquantum scilicet aliquis praesumere dicitur ex eo quod sperat a Deo bonum quod excedit suam conditionem; vel non sperat quod secundum suam conditionem sperare posset. Non autem potest esse superabundantia spei ex parte Dei, cuius bonitas est infinita. Similiter etiam fides est media inter contrarias haereses, non per comparationem ad obiectum, quod est Deus, cui non potest aliquis nimis credere, sed inquantum ipsa opinio humana est media inter contrarias opiniones, ut ex supradictis patet. Reply to Objection 3. Hope observes the mean between presumption and despair, in relation to us, in so far, to wit, as a man is said to be presumptuous, through hoping to receive from God a good in excess of his condition; or to despair through failing to hope for that which according to his condition he might hope for. But there can be no excess of hope in comparison with God, Whose goodness is infinite. In like manner faith holds a middle course between contrary heresies, not by comparison with its object, which is God, in Whom we cannot believe too much; but in so far as human opinion itself takes a middle position between contrary opinions, as was explained above.
q. 65 pr. Deinde considerandum est de connexione virtutum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum virtutes morales sint ad invicem connexae. Secundo, utrum virtutes morales possint esse sine caritate. Tertio, utrum caritas possit esse sine eis. Quarto, utrum fides et spes possint esse sine caritate. Quinto, utrum caritas possit esse sine eis. Question 65. The connection of virtues Are the moral virtues connected with one another? Can the moral virtues be without charity? Can charity be without them? Can faith and hope be without charity? Can charity be without them?
q. 65 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales non sint ex necessitate connexae. Virtutes enim morales quandoque causantur ex exercitio actuum, ut probatur in II Ethic. Sed homo potest exercitari in actibus alicuius virtutis sine hoc quod exercitetur in actibus alterius virtutis. Ergo una virtus moralis potest haberi sine altera. Objection 1. It would seem that the moral virtues are not connected with one another. Because moral virtues are sometimes caused by the exercise of acts, as is proved in Ethic. ii, 1,2. But man can exercise himself in the acts of one virtue, without exercising himself in the acts of some other virtue. Therefore it is possible to have one moral virtue without another.
q. 65 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, magnificentia et magnanimitas sunt quaedam virtutes morales. Sed aliquis potest habere alias virtutes morales, sine hoc quod habeat magnificentiam et magnanimitatem, dicit enim philosophus, in IV Ethic., quod inops non potest esse magnificus, qui tamen potest habere quasdam alias virtutes; et quod ille qui parvis est dignus, et his se dignificat, temperatus est, magnanimus autem non est. Ergo virtutes morales non sunt connexae. Objection 2. Further, magnificence and magnanimity are moral virtues. Now a man may have other moral virtues without having magnificence or magnanimity: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 2,3) that "a poor man cannot be magnificent," and yet he may have other virtues; and (Ethic. iv) that "he who is worthy of small things, and so accounts his worth, is modest, but not magnanimous." Therefore the moral virtues are not connected with one another.
q. 65 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut virtutes morales perficiunt partem appetitivam animae, ita virtutes intellectuales perficiunt partem intellectivam. Sed virtutes intellectuales non sunt connexae, potest enim aliquis habere unam scientiam, sine hoc quod habeat aliam. Ergo etiam neque virtutes morales sunt connexae. Objection 3. Further, as the moral virtues perfect the appetitive part of the soul, so do the intellectual virtues perfect the intellective part. But the intellectual virtues are not mutually connected: since we may have one science, without having another. Neither, therefore, are the moral virtues connected with one another.
q. 65 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, si virtutes morales sint connexae, hoc non est nisi quia connectuntur in prudentia. Sed hoc non sufficit ad connexionem virtutum moralium. Videtur enim quod aliquis possit esse prudens circa agibilia quae pertinent ad unam virtutem, sine hoc quod sit prudens in his quae pertinent ad aliam, sicut etiam aliquis potest habere artem circa quaedam factibilia, sine hoc quod habeat artem circa alia. Prudentia autem est recta ratio agibilium. Ergo non est necessarium virtutes morales esse connexas. Objection 4. Further, if the moral virtues are mutually connected, this can only be because they are united together in prudence. But this does not suffice to connect the moral virtues together. For, seemingly, one may be prudent about things to be done in relation to one virtue, without being prudent in those that concern another virtue: even as one may have the art of making certain things, without the art of making certain others. Now prudence is right reason about things to be done. Therefore the moral virtues are not necessarily connected with one another.
q. 65 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, super Lucam, connexae sibi sunt, concatenataeque virtutes, ut qui unam habet, plures habere videatur. Augustinus etiam dicit, in VI de Trin., quod virtutes quae sunt in animo humano, nullo modo separantur ab invicem. Et Gregorius dicit, XXII Moral., quod una virtus sine aliis aut omnino nulla est, aut imperfecta. Et Tullius dicit, in II de Tuscul. quaest., si unam virtutem confessus es te non habere, nullam necesse est te habiturum. On the contrary, Ambrose says on Luke 6:20: "The virtues are connected and linked together, so that whoever has one, is seen to have several": and Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 4) that "the virtues that reside in the human mind are quite inseparable from one another": and Gregory says (Moral. xxii, 1) that "one virtue without the other is either of no account whatever, or very imperfect": and Cicero says (Quaest. Tusc. ii): "If you confess to not having one particular virtue, it must needs be that you have none at all."
q. 65 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod virtus moralis potest accipi vel perfecta vel imperfecta. Imperfecta quidem moralis virtus, ut temperantia vel fortitudo, nihil aliud est quam aliqua inclinatio in nobis existens ad opus aliquod de genere bonorum faciendum, sive talis inclinatio sit in nobis a natura, sive ex assuetudine. Et hoc modo accipiendo virtutes morales, non sunt connexae, videmus enim aliquem ex naturali complexione, vel ex aliqua consuetudine, esse promptum ad opera liberalitatis, qui tamen non est promptus ad opera castitatis. Perfecta autem virtus moralis est habitus inclinans in bonum opus bene agendum. Et sic accipiendo virtutes morales, dicendum est eas connexas esse; ut fere ab omnibus ponitur. Cuius ratio duplex assignatur, secundum quod diversimode aliqui virtutes cardinales distinguunt. Ut enim dictum est, quidam distinguunt eas secundum quasdam generales conditiones virtutum, utpote quod discretio pertineat ad prudentiam, rectitudo ad iustitiam, moderantia ad temperantiam, firmitas animi ad fortitudinem, in quacumque materia ista considerentur. Et secundum hoc, manifeste apparet ratio connexionis, non enim firmitas habet laudem virtutis, si sit sine moderatione, vel rectitudine, aut discretione; et eadem ratio est de aliis. Et hanc rationem connexionis assignat Gregorius, XXII Moral., dicens quod virtutes, si sint disiunctae, non possunt esse perfectae, secundum rationem virtutis, quia nec prudentia vera est quae iusta, temperans et fortis non est; et idem subdit de aliis virtutibus. Et similem rationem assignat Augustinus, in VI de Trin. Alii vero distinguunt praedictas virtutes secundum materias. Et secundum hoc assignatur ratio connexionis ab Aristotele, in VI Ethic. Quia sicut supra dictum est, nulla virtus moralis potest sine prudentia haberi, eo quod proprium virtutis moralis est facere electionem rectam, cum sit habitus electivus; ad rectam autem electionem non solum sufficit inclinatio in debitum finem, quod est directe per habitum virtutis moralis; sed etiam quod aliquis directe eligat ea quae sunt ad finem, quod fit per prudentiam, quae est consiliativa et iudicativa et praeceptiva eorum quae sunt ad finem. Similiter etiam prudentia non potest haberi nisi habeantur virtutes morales, cum prudentia sit recta ratio agibilium, quae, sicut ex principiis, procedit ex finibus agibilium, ad quos aliquis recte se habet per virtutes morales. Unde sicut scientia speculativa non potest haberi sine intellectu principiorum, ita nec prudentia sine virtutibus moralibus. Ex quo manifeste sequitur virtutes morales esse connexas. I answer that, Moral virtue may be considered either as perfect or as imperfect. An imperfect moral virtue, temperance for instance, or fortitude, is nothing but an inclination in us to do some kind of good deed, whether such inclination be in us by nature or by habituation. If we take the moral virtues in this way, they are not connected: since we find men who, by natural temperament or by being accustomed, are prompt in doing deeds of liberality, but are not prompt in doing deeds of chastity. But the perfect moral virtue is a habit that inclines us to do a good deed well; and if we take moral virtues in this way, we must say that they are connected, as nearly as all are agreed in saying. For this two reasons are given, corresponding to the different ways of assigning the distinction of the cardinal virtues. For, as we stated above (61, A3,4), some distinguish them according to certain general properties of the virtues: for instance, by saying that discretion belongs to prudence, rectitude to justice, moderation to temperance, and strength of mind to fortitude, in whatever matter we consider these properties to be. In this way the reason for the connection is evident: for strength of mind is not commended as virtuous, if it be without moderation or rectitude or discretion: and so forth. This, too, is the reason assigned for the connection by Gregory, who says (Moral. xxii, 1) that "a virtue cannot be perfect" as a virtue, "if isolated from the others: for there can be no true prudence without temperance, justice and fortitude": and he continues to speak in like manner of the other virtues (cf. 61, 4, Objection 1). Augustine also gives the same reason (De Trin. vi, 4). Others, however, differentiate these virtues in respect of their matters, and it is in this way that Aristotle assigns the reason for their connection (Ethic. vi, 13). Because, as stated above (Question 58, Article 4), no moral virtue can be without prudence; since it is proper to moral virtue to make a right choice, for it is an elective habit. Now right choice requires not only the inclination to a due end, which inclination is the direct outcome of moral virtue, but also correct choice of things conducive to the end, which choice is made by prudence, that counsels, judges, and commands in those things that are directed to the end. In like manner one cannot have prudence unless one has the moral virtues: since prudence is "right reason about things to be done," and the starting point of reason is the end of the thing to be done, to which end man is rightly disposed by moral virtue. Hence, just as we cannot have speculative science unless we have the understanding of the principles, so neither can we have prudence without the moral virtues: and from this it follows clearly that the moral virtues are connected with one another.
q. 65 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutum moralium quaedam perficiunt hominem secundum communem statum, scilicet quantum ad ea quae communiter in omni vita hominum occurrunt agenda. Unde oportet quod homo simul exercitetur circa materias omnium virtutum moralium. Et si quidem circa omnes exercitetur bene operando, acquiret habitus omnium virtutum moralium. Si autem exercitetur bene operando circa unam materiam, non autem circa aliam, puta bene se habendo circa iras, non autem circa concupiscentias; acquiret quidem habitum aliquem ad refrenandum iras, qui tamen non habebit rationem virtutis, propter defectum prudentiae, quae circa concupiscentias corrumpitur. Sicut etiam naturales inclinationes non habent perfectam rationem virtutis, si prudentia desit. Quaedam vero virtutes morales sunt quae perficiunt hominem secundum aliquem eminentem statum, sicut magnificentia, et magnanimitas. Et quia exercitium circa materias harum virtutum non occurrit unicuique communiter, potest aliquis habere alias virtutes morales, sine hoc quod habitus harum virtutum habeat actu, loquendo de virtutibus acquisitis. Sed tamen, acquisitis aliis virtutibus, habet istas virtutes in potentia propinqua. Cum enim aliquis per exercitium adeptus est liberalitatem circa mediocres donationes et sumptus, si superveniat ei abundantia pecuniarum, modico exercitio acquiret magnificentiae habitum, sicut geometer modico studio acquirit scientiam alicuius conclusionis quam nunquam consideravit. Illud autem habere dicimur, quod in promptu est ut habeamus; secundum illud philosophi, in II Physic., quod parum deest, quasi nihil deesse videtur. Reply to Objection 1. Some moral virtues perfect man as regards his general state, in other words, with regard to those things which have to be done in every kind of human life. Hence man needs to exercise himself at the same time in the matters of all moral virtues. And if he exercise himself, by good deeds, in all such matters, he will acquire the habits of all the moral virtues. But if he exercise himself by good deeds in regard to one matter, but not in regard to another, for instance, by behaving well in matters of anger, but not in matters of concupiscence; he will indeed acquire a certain habit of restraining his anger; but this habit will lack the nature of virtue, through the absence of prudence, which is wanting in matters of concupiscence. In the same way, natural inclinations fail to have the complete character of virtue, if prudence be lacking. But there are some moral virtues which perfect man with regard to some eminent state, such as magnificence and magnanimity; and since it does not happen to all in common to be exercised in the matter of such virtues, it is possible for a man to have the other moral virtues, without actually having the habits of these virtues--provided we speak of acquired virtue. Nevertheless, when once a man has acquired those other virtues he possesses these in proximate potentiality. Because when, by practice, a man has acquired liberality in small gifts and expenditure, if he were to come in for a large sum of money, he would acquire the habit of magnificence with but little practice: even as a geometrician, by dint of little study, acquires scientific knowledge about some conclusion which had never been presented to his mind before. Now we speak of having a thing when we are on the point of having it, according to the saying of the Philosopher (Phys. ii, text. 56): "That which is scarcely lacking is not lacking at all."
q. 65 a. 1 ad 2 Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
q. 65 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod virtutes intellectuales sunt circa diversas materias ad invicem non ordinatas, sicut patet in diversis scientiis et artibus. Et ideo non invenitur in eis connexio quae invenitur in virtutibus moralibus existentibus circa passiones et operationes, quae manifeste habent ordinem ad invicem. Nam omnes passiones, a quibusdam primis procedentes, scilicet amore et odio, ad quasdam alias terminantur, scilicet delectationem et tristitiam. Et similiter omnes operationes quae sunt virtutis moralis materia, habent ordinem ad invicem, et etiam ad passiones. Et ideo tota materia moralium virtutum sub una ratione prudentiae cadit. Habent tamen omnia intelligibilia ordinem ad prima principia. Et secundum hoc, omnes virtutes intellectuales dependent ab intellectu principiorum; sicut prudentia a virtutibus moralibus, ut dictum est. Principia autem universalia, quorum est intellectus principiorum, non dependent a conclusionibus, de quibus sunt reliquae intellectuales virtutes; sicut morales dependent a prudentia, eo quod appetitus movet quodammodo rationem, et ratio appetitum, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. The intellectual virtues are about divers matters having no relation to one another, as is clearly the case with the various sciences and arts. Hence we do not observe in them the connection that is to be found among the moral virtues, which are about passions and operations, that are clearly related to one another. For all the passions have their rise in certain initial passions, viz. love and hatred, and terminate in certain others, viz. pleasure and sorrow. In like manner all the operations that are the matter of moral virtue are related to one another, and to the passions. Hence the whole matter of moral virtues falls under the one rule of prudence. Nevertheless, all intelligible things are related to first principles. And in this way, all the intellectual virtues depend on the understanding of principles; even as prudence depends on the moral virtues, as stated. On the other hand, the universal principles which are the object of the virtue of understanding of principles, do not depend on the conclusions, which are the objects of the other intellectual virtues, as do the moral virtues depend on prudence, because the appetite, in a fashion, moves the reason, and the reason the appetite, as stated above (9, 1; 58, 5, ad 1).
q. 65 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod ea ad quae inclinant virtutes morales, se habent ad prudentiam sicut principia, non autem factibilia se habent ad artem sicut principia, sed solum sicut materia. Manifestum est autem quod, etsi ratio possit esse recta in una parte materiae, et non in alia; nullo tamen modo potest dici ratio recta, si sit defectus cuiuscumque principii. Sicut si quis erraret circa hoc principium, omne totum est maius sua parte, non posset habere scientiam geometricam, quia oporteret multum recedere a veritate in sequentibus. Et praeterea, agibilia sunt ordinata ad invicem; non autem factibilia, ut dictum est. Et ideo defectus prudentiae circa unam partem agibilium, induceret defectum etiam circa alia agibilia. Quod in factibilibus non contingit. Reply to Objection 4. Those things to which the moral virtues incline, are as the principles of prudence: whereas the products of art are not the principles, but the matter of art. Now it is evident that, though reason may be right in one part of the matter, and not in another, yet in no way can it be called right reason, if it be deficient in any principle whatever. Thus, if a man be wrong about the principle, "A whole is greater than its part," he cannot acquire the science of geometry, because he must necessarily wander from the truth in his conclusion. Moreover, things "done" are related to one another, but not things "made," as stated above (ad 3). Consequently the lack of prudence in one department of things to be done, would result in a deficiency affecting other things to be done: whereas this does not occur in things to be made.
q. 65 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales possint esse sine caritate. Dicitur enim in libro sententiarum prosperi, quod omnis virtus praeter caritatem, potest esse communis bonis et malis. Sed caritas non potest esse nisi in bonis, ut dicitur ibidem. Ergo aliae virtutes possunt haberi sine caritate. Objection 1. It would seem that moral virtues can be without charity. For it is stated in the Liber Sentent. Prosperi vii, that "every virtue save charity may be common to the good and bad." But "charity can be in none except the good," as stated in the same book. Therefore the other virtues can be had without charity.
q. 65 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutes morales possunt acquiri ex actibus humanis, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed caritas non habetur nisi ex infusione; secundum illud Rom. V, caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis. Ergo aliae virtutes possunt haberi sine caritate. Objection 2. Further, moral virtues can be acquired by means of human acts, as stated in Ethic. ii, 1,2, whereas charity cannot be had otherwise than by infusion, according to Romans 5:5: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who is given to us." Therefore it is possible to have the other virtues without charity.
q. 65 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtutes morales connectuntur ad invicem, inquantum dependent a prudentia. Sed caritas non dependet a prudentia; immo prudentiam excedit, secundum illud Ephes. III, supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi. Ergo virtutes morales non connectuntur caritati, sed sine ea esse possunt. Objection 3. Further, the moral virtues are connected together, through depending on prudence. But charity does not depend on prudence; indeed, it surpasses prudence, according to Ephesians 3:19: "The charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge." Therefore the moral virtues are not connected with charity, and can be without it.
q. 65 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. III, qui non diligit, manet in morte. Sed per virtutes perficitur vita spiritualis, ipsae enim sunt quibus recte vivitur, ut Augustinus dicit, in II de Lib. Arbit. Ergo non possunt esse sine dilectione caritatis. On the contrary, It is written (1 John 3:14): "He that loveth not, abideth in death." Now the spiritual life is perfected by the virtues, since it is "by them" that "we lead a good life," as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. ii, 17,19). Therefore they cannot be without the love of charity.
q. 65 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtutes morales prout sunt operativae boni in ordine ad finem qui non excedit facultatem naturalem hominis, possunt per opera humana acquiri. Et sic acquisitae sine caritate esse possunt, sicut fuerunt in multis gentilibus. Secundum autem quod sunt operativae boni in ordine ad ultimum finem supernaturalem, sic perfecte et vere habent rationem virtutis; et non possunt humanis actibus acquiri, sed infunduntur a Deo. Et huiusmodi virtutes morales sine caritate esse non possunt. Dictum est enim supra quod aliae virtutes morales non possunt esse sine prudentia; prudentia autem non potest esse sine virtutibus moralibus, inquantum virtutes morales faciunt bene se habere ad quosdam fines, ex quibus procedit ratio prudentiae. Ad rectam autem rationem prudentiae multo magis requiritur quod homo bene se habeat circa ultimum finem, quod fit per caritatem, quam circa alios fines, quod fit per virtutes morales, sicut ratio recta in speculativis maxime indiget primo principio indemonstrabili, quod est contradictoria non simul esse vera. Unde manifestum fit quod nec prudentia infusa potest esse sine caritate; nec aliae virtutes morales consequenter, quae sine prudentia esse non possunt. Patet igitur ex dictis quod solae virtutes infusae sunt perfectae, et simpliciter dicendae virtutes, quia bene ordinant hominem ad finem ultimum simpliciter. Aliae vero virtutes, scilicet acquisitae, sunt secundum quid virtutes, non autem simpliciter, ordinant enim hominem bene respectu finis ultimi in aliquo genere, non autem respectu finis ultimi simpliciter. Unde Rom. XIV super illud, omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, dicit Glossa Augustini, ubi deest agnitio veritatis, falsa est virtus etiam in bonis moribus. I answer that, As stated above (Question 63, Article 2), it is possible by means of human works to acquire moral virtues, in so far as they produce good works that are directed to an end not surpassing the natural power of man: and when they are acquired thus, they can be without charity, even as they were in many of the Gentiles. But in so far as they produce good works in proportion to a supernatural last end, thus they have the character of virtue, truly and perfectly; and cannot be acquired by human acts, but are infused by God. Such like moral virtues cannot be without charity. For it has been stated above (1; 58, A4,5) that the other moral virtues cannot be without prudence; and that prudence cannot be without the moral virtues, because these latter make man well disposed to certain ends, which are the starting-point of the procedure of prudence. Now for prudence to proceed aright, it is much more necessary that man be well disposed towards his ultimate end, which is the effect of charity, than that he be well disposed in respect of other ends, which is the effect of moral virtue: just as in speculative matters right reason has greatest need of the first indemonstrable principle, that "contradictories cannot both be true at the same time." It is therefore evident that neither can infused prudence be without charity; nor, consequently, the other moral virtues, since they cannot be without prudence. It is therefore clear from what has been said that only the infused virtues are perfect, and deserve to be called virtues simply: since they direct man well to the ultimate end. But the other virtues, those, namely, that are acquired, are virtues in a restricted sense, but not simply: for they direct man well in respect of the last end in some particular genus of action, but not in respect of the last end simply. Hence a gloss of Augustine [Cf. Lib. Sentent. Prosperi cvi.] on the words, "All that is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), says: "He that fails to acknowledge the truth, has no true virtue, even if his conduct be good."
q. 65 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutes ibi accipiuntur secundum imperfectam rationem virtutis. Alioquin, si virtus moralis secundum perfectam rationem virtutis accipiatur, bonum facit habentem; et per consequens in malis esse non potest. Reply to Objection 1. Virtue, in the words quoted, denotes imperfect virtue. Else if we take moral virtue in its perfect state, "it makes its possessor good," and consequently cannot be in the wicked.
q. 65 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de virtutibus moralibus acquisitis. Reply to Objection 2. This argument holds good of virtue in the sense of acquired virtue.
q. 65 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, etsi caritas excedat scientiam et prudentiam, tamen prudentia dependet a caritate, ut dictum est. Et per consequens, omnes virtutes morales infusae. Reply to Objection 3. Though charity surpasses science and prudence, yet prudence depends on charity, as stated: and consequently so do all the infused moral virtues.
q. 65 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas sine aliis virtutibus moralibus haberi possit. Ad id enim ad quod sufficit unum, indebitum est quod plura ordinentur. Sed sola caritas sufficit ad omnia opera virtutis implenda, ut patet per id quod dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, caritas patiens est, benigna est, et cetera. Ergo videtur quod, habita caritate, aliae virtutes superfluerent. Objection 1. It would seem possible to have charity without the moral virtues. For when one thing suffices for a certain purpose, it is superfluous to employ others. Now charity alone suffices for the fulfilment of all the works of virtue, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 13:4, seqq.: "Charity is patient, is kind," etc. Therefore it seems that if one has charity, other virtues are superfluous.
q. 65 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, qui habet habitum virtutis, de facili operatur ea quae sunt virtutis, et ei secundum se placent, unde et signum habitus est delectatio quae fit in opere, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed multi habent caritatem, absque peccato mortali existentes, qui tamen difficultatem in operibus virtutum patiuntur, neque eis secundum se placent, sed solum secundum quod referuntur ad caritatem. Ergo multi habent caritatem, qui non habent alias virtutes. Objection 2. Further, he that has a habit of virtue easily performs the works of that virtue, and those works are pleasing to him for their own sake: hence "pleasure taken in a work is a sign of habit" (Ethic. ii, 3). Now many have charity, being free from mortal sin, and yet they find it difficult to do works of virtue; nor are these works pleasing to them for their own sake, but only for the sake of charity. Therefore many have charity without the other virtues.
q. 65 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, caritas in omnibus sanctis invenitur. Sed quidam sunt sancti qui tamen aliquibus virtutibus carent, dicit enim Beda quod sancti magis humiliantur de virtutibus quas non habent, quam de virtutibus quas habent, glorientur. Ergo non est necessarium quod qui habet caritatem, omnes virtutes morales habeat. Objection 3. Further, charity is to be found in every saint: and yet there are some saints who are without certain virtues. For Bede says (on Luke 17:10) that the saints are more humbled on account of their not having certain virtues, than rejoiced at the virtues they have. Therefore, if a man has charity, it does not follow of necessity that he has all the moral virtues.
q. 65 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod per caritatem tota lex impletur, dicitur enim Rom. XIII, qui diligit proximum, legem implevit. Sed tota lex impleri non potest nisi per omnes virtutes morales, quia lex praecipit de omnibus actibus virtutum, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Ergo qui habet caritatem, habet omnes virtutes morales. Augustinus etiam dicit, in quadam epistola, quod caritas includit in se omnes virtutes cardinales. On the contrary, The whole Law is fulfilled through charity, for it is written (Romans 13:8): "He that loveth his neighbor, hath fulfilled the Law." Now it is not possible to fulfil the whole Law, without having all the moral virtues: since the law contains precepts about all acts of virtue, as stated in Ethic. v, 1,2. Therefore he that has charity, has all the moral virtues. Moreover, Augustine says in a letter (Epis. clxvii) [Cf. Serm. xxxix and xlvi de Temp.] that charity contains all the cardinal virtues.
q. 65 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod cum caritate simul infunduntur omnes virtutes morales. Cuius ratio est quia Deus non minus perfecte operatur in operibus gratiae, quam in operibus naturae. Sic autem videmus in operibus naturae, quod non invenitur principium aliquorum operum in aliqua re, quin inveniantur in ea quae sunt necessaria ad huiusmodi opera perficienda, sicut in animalibus inveniuntur organa quibus perfici possunt opera ad quae peragenda anima habet potestatem. Manifestum est autem quod caritas, inquantum ordinat hominem ad finem ultimum, est principium omnium bonorum operum quae in finem ultimum ordinari possunt. Unde oportet quod cum caritate simul infundantur omnes virtutes morales, quibus homo perficit singula genera bonorum operum. Et sic patet quod virtutes morales infusae non solum habent connexionem propter prudentiam; sed etiam propter caritatem. Et quod qui amittit caritatem per peccatum mortale, amittit omnes virtutes morales infusas. I answer that, All the moral virtues are infused together with charity. The reason for this is that God operates no less perfectly in works of grace than in works of nature. Now, in the works of nature, we find that whenever a thing contains a principle of certain works, it has also whatever is necessary for their execution: thus animals are provided with organs whereby to perform the actions that their souls empower them to do. Now it is evident that charity, inasmuch as it directs man to his last end, is the principle of all the good works that are referable to his last end. Wherefore all the moral virtues must needs be infused together with charity, since it is through them that man performs each different kind of good work. It is therefore clear that the infused moral virtues are connected, not only through prudence, but also on account of charity: and, again, that whoever loses charity through mortal sin, forfeits all the infused moral virtues.
q. 65 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad hoc quod actus inferioris potentiae sit perfectus, requiritur quod non solum adsit perfectio in superiori potentia, sed etiam in inferiori, si enim principale agens debito modo se haberet, non sequeretur actio perfecta, si instrumentum non esset bene dispositum. Unde oportet ad hoc quod homo bene operetur in his quae sunt ad finem, quod non solum habeat virtutem qua bene se habeat circa finem, sed etiam virtutes quibus bene se habeat circa ea quae sunt ad finem, nam virtus quae est circa finem, se habet ut principalis et motiva respectu earum quae sunt ad finem. Et ideo cum caritate necesse est etiam habere alias virtutes morales. Reply to Objection 1. In order that the act of a lower power be perfect, not only must there be perfection in the higher, but also in the lower power: for if the principal agent were well disposed, perfect action would not follow, if the instrument also were not well disposed. Consequently, in order that man work well in things referred to the end, he needs not only a virtue disposing him well to the end, but also those virtues which dispose him well to whatever is referred to the end: for the virtue which regards the end is the chief and moving principle in respect of those things that are referred to the end. Therefore it is necessary to have the moral virtues together with charity.
q. 65 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod quandoque contingit quod aliquis habens habitum, patitur difficultatem in operando, et per consequens non sentit delectationem et complacentiam in actu, propter aliquod impedimentum extrinsecus superveniens, sicut ille qui habet habitum scientiae, patitur difficultatem in intelligendo, propter somnolentiam vel aliquam infirmitatem. Et similiter habitus moralium virtutum infusarum patiuntur interdum difficultatem in operando, propter aliquas dispositiones contrarias ex praecedentibus actibus relictas. Quae quidem difficultas non ita accidit in virtutibus moralibus acquisitis, quia per exercitium actuum, quo acquiruntur, tolluntur etiam contrariae dispositiones. Reply to Objection 2. It happens sometimes that a man who has a habit, finds it difficult to act in accordance with the habit, and consequently feels no pleasure and complacency in the act, on account of some impediment supervening from without: thus a man who has a habit of science, finds it difficult to understand, through being sleepy or unwell. In like manner sometimes the habits of moral virtue experience difficulty in their works, by reason of certain ordinary dispositions remaining from previous acts. This difficulty does not occur in respect of acquired moral virtue: because the repeated acts by which they are acquired, remove also the contrary dispositions.
q. 65 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod aliqui sancti dicuntur aliquas virtutes non habere, inquantum patiuntur difficultatem in actibus earum, ratione iam dicta; quamvis habitus omnium virtutum habeant. Reply to Objection 3. Certain saints are said not to have certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, for the reason stated; although they have the habits of all the virtues.
q. 65 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides et spes nunquam sint sine caritate. Cum enim sint virtutes theologicae, digniores esse videntur virtutibus moralibus, etiam infusis. Sed virtutes morales infusae non possunt esse sine caritate. Ergo neque fides et spes. Objection 1. It would seem that faith and hope are never without charity. Because, since they are theological virtues, they seem to be more excellent than even the infused moral virtues. But the infused moral virtues cannot be without charity. Neither therefore can faith and hope be without charity.
q. 65 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus credit nisi volens, sed caritas est in voluntate ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Sicut perfectio eius, ut supra dictum est. Ergo fides non potest esse sine caritate. Objection 2. Further, "no man believes unwillingly" as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But charity is in the will as a perfection thereof, as stated above (Question 62, Article 3). Therefore faith cannot be without charity.
q. 65 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod spes sine amore esse non potest. Amor autem est caritas, de hoc enim amore ibi loquitur. Ergo spes non potest esse sine caritate. Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion viii) that "there can be no hope without love." But love is charity: for it is of this love that he speaks. Therefore hope cannot be without charity.
q. 65 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Matth. I, dicitur in Glossa quod fides generat spem, spes vero caritatem. Sed generans est prius generato, et potest esse sine eo. Ergo fides potest esse sine spe; et spes sine caritate. On the contrary, A gloss on Matthew 1:2 says that "faith begets hope, and hope, charity." Now the begetter precedes the begotten, and can be without it. Therefore faith can be without hope; and hope, without charity.
q. 65 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod fides et spes, sicut et virtutes morales, dupliciter considerari possunt. Uno modo, secundum inchoationem quandam; alio modo, secundum perfectum esse virtutis. Cum enim virtus ordinetur ad bonum opus agendum, virtus quidem perfecta dicitur ex hoc quod potest in opus perfecte bonum, quod quidem est dum non solum bonum est quod fit, sed etiam bene fit. Alioquin, si bonum sit quod fit, non autem bene fiat, non erit perfecte bonum, unde nec habitus qui est talis operis principium, habebit perfecte rationem virtutis. Sicut si aliquis operetur iusta, bonum quidem facit, sed non erit opus perfectae virtutis, nisi hoc bene faciat, idest secundum electionem rectam, quod est per prudentiam, et ideo iustitia sine prudentia non potest esse virtus perfecta. Sic igitur fides et spes sine caritate possunt quidem aliqualiter esse, perfectae autem virtutis rationem sine caritate non habent. Cum enim fidei opus sit credere Deo; credere autem sit alicui propria voluntate assentire, si non debito modo velit, non erit fidei opus perfectum. Quod autem debito modo velit, hoc est per caritatem, quae perficit voluntatem, omnis enim rectus motus voluntatis ex recto amore procedit, ut Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei. Sic igitur fides est quidem sine caritate, sed non perfecta virtus, sicut temperantia vel fortitudo sine prudentia. Et similiter dicendum est de spe. Nam actus spei est expectare futuram beatitudinem a Deo. Qui quidem actus perfectus est, si fiat ex meritis quae quis habet, quod non potest esse sine caritate. Si autem hoc expectet ex meritis quae nondum habet, sed proponit in futurum acquirere, erit actus imperfectus, et hoc potest esse sine caritate. Et ideo fides et spes possunt esse sine caritate, sed sine caritate, proprie loquendo, virtutes non sunt; nam ad rationem virtutis pertinet ut non solum secundum ipsam aliquod bonum operemur, sed etiam bene, ut dicitur in II Ethic. I answer that, Faith and hope, like the moral virtues, can be considered in two ways; first in an inchoate state; secondly, as complete virtues. For since virtue is directed to the doing of good works, perfect virtue is that which gives the faculty of doing a perfectly good work, and this consists in not only doing what is good, but also in doing it well. Else, if what is done is good, but not well done, it will not be perfectly good; wherefore neither will the habit that is the principle of such an act, have the perfect character of virtue. For instance, if a man do what is just, what he does is good: but it will not be the work of a perfect virtue unless he do it well, i.e. by choosing rightly, which is the result of prudence; for which reason justice cannot be a perfect virtue without prudence. Accordingly faith and hope can exist indeed in a fashion without charity: but they have not the perfect character of virtue without charity. For, since the act of faith is to believe in God; and since to believe is to assent to someone of one's own free will: to will not as one ought, will not be a perfect act of faith. To will as one ought is the outcome of charity which perfects the will: since every right movement of the will proceeds from a right love, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9). Hence faith may be without charity, but not as a perfect virtue: just as temperance and fortitude can be without prudence. The same applies to hope. Because the act of hope consists in looking to God for future bliss. This act is perfect, if it is based on the merits which we have; and this cannot be without charity. But to expect future bliss through merits which one has not yet, but which one proposes to acquire at some future time, will be an imperfect act; and this is possible without charity. Consequently, faith and hope can be without charity; yet, without charity, they are not virtues properly so-called; because the nature of virtue requires that by it, we should not only do what is good, but also that we should do it well (Ethic. ii, 6).
q. 65 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutes morales dependent a prudentia, prudentia autem infusa nec rationem prudentiae habere potest absque caritate, utpote deficiente debita habitudine ad primum principium, quod est ultimus finis. Fides autem et spes, secundum proprias rationes, nec a prudentia nec a caritate dependent. Et ideo sine caritate esse possunt; licet non sint virtutes sine caritate, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Moral virtue depends on prudence: and not even infused prudence has the character of prudence without charity; for this involves the absence of due order to the first principle, viz. the ultimate end. On the other hand faith and hope, as such, do not depend either on prudence or charity; so that they can be without charity, although they are not virtues without charity, as stated.
q. 65 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de fide quae habet perfectam rationem virtutis. Reply to Objection 2. This argument is true of faith considered as a perfect virtue.
q. 65 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur ibi de spe, secundum quod aliquis expectat futuram beatitudinem per merita quae iam habet, quod non est sine caritate. Reply to Objection 3. Augustine is speaking here of that hope whereby we look to gain future bliss through merits which we have already; and this is not without charity.
q. 65 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas possit esse sine fide et spe. Caritas enim est amor Dei. Sed Deus potest a nobis amari naturaliter, etiam non praesupposita fide, vel spe futurae beatitudinis. Ergo caritas potest esse sine fide et spe. Objection 1. It would seem that charity can be without faith and hope. For charity is the love of God. But it is possible for us to love God naturally, without already having faith, or hope in future bliss. Therefore charity can be without faith and hope.
q. 65 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, caritas est radix omnium virtutum; secundum illud Ephes. III, in caritate radicati et fundati. Sed radix aliquando est sine ramis. Ergo caritas potest esse aliquando sine fide et spe et aliis virtutibus. Objection 2. Further, charity is the root of all the virtues, according to Ephesians 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity." Now the root is sometimes without branches. Therefore charity can sometimes be without faith and hope, and the other virtues.
q. 65 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, in Christo fuit perfecta caritas. Ipse tamen non habuit fidem et spem, quia fuit perfectus comprehensor, ut infra dicetur. Ergo caritas potest esse sine fide et spe. Objection 3. Further, there was perfect charity in Christ. And yet He had neither faith nor hope: because He was a perfect comprehensor, as we shall explain further on (TP, 7, A3,4). Therefore charity can be without faith and hope.
q. 65 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Heb. XI, sine fide impossibile est placere Deo; quod maxime pertinet ad caritatem, ut patet; secundum illud Proverb. VIII, ego diligentes me diligo. Spes etiam est quae introducit ad caritatem, ut supra dictum est. Ergo caritas non potest haberi sine fide et spe. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Hebrews 11:6): "Without faith it is impossible to please God"; and this evidently belongs most to charity, according to Proverbs 8:17: "I love them that love me." Again, it is by hope that we are brought to charity, as stated above (Question 62, Article 4). Therefore it is not possible to have charity without faith and hope.
q. 65 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod caritas non solum significat amorem Dei, sed etiam amicitiam quandam ad ipsum; quae quidem super amorem addit mutuam redamationem cum quadam mutua communicatione, ut dicitur in VIII Ethic. Et quod hoc ad caritatem pertineat, patet per id quod dicitur I Ioan. IV, qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Et I ad Cor. I dicitur, fidelis Deus, per quem vocati estis in societatem filii eius. Haec autem societas hominis ad Deum, quae est quaedam familiaris conversatio cum ipso, inchoatur quidem hic in praesenti per gratiam, perficietur autem in futuro per gloriam, quorum utrumque fide et spe tenetur. Unde sicut aliquis non posset cum aliquo amicitiam habere, si discrederet vel desperaret se posse habere aliquam societatem vel familiarem conversationem cum ipso; ita aliquis non potest habere amicitiam ad Deum, quae est caritas, nisi fidem habeat, per quam credat huiusmodi societatem et conversationem hominis cum Deo, et speret se ad hanc societatem pertinere. Et sic caritas sine fide et spe nullo modo esse potest. I answer that, Charity signifies not only the love of God, but also a certain friendship with Him; which implies, besides love, a certain mutual return of love, together with mutual communion, as stated in Ethic. viii, 2. That this belongs to charity is evident from 1 John 4:16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him," and from 1 Corinthians 1:9, where it is written: "God is faithful, by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son." Now this fellowship of man with God, which consists in a certain familiar colloquy with Him, is begun here, in this life, by grace, but will be perfected in the future life, by glory; each of which things we hold by faith and hope. Wherefore just as friendship with a person would be impossible, if one disbelieved in, or despaired of, the possibility of their fellowship or familiar colloquy; so too, friendship with God, which is charity, is impossible without faith, so as to believe in this fellowship and colloquy with God, and to hope to attain to this fellowship. Therefore charity is quite impossible without faith and hope.
q. 65 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritas non est qualiscumque amor Dei, sed amor Dei quo diligitur ut beatitudinis obiectum, ad quod ordinamur per fidem et spem. Reply to Objection 1. Charity is not any kind of love of God, but that love of God, by which He is loved as the object of bliss, to which object we are directed by faith and hope.
q. 65 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod caritas est radix fidei et spei, inquantum dat eis perfectionem virtutis. Sed fides et spes, secundum rationem propriam, praesupponuntur ad caritatem, ut supra dictum est. Et sic caritas sine eis esse non potest. Reply to Objection 2. Charity is the root of faith and hope, in so far as it gives them the perfection of virtue. But faith and hope as such are the precursors of charity, as stated above (Question 62, Article 4), and so charity is impossible without them.
q. 65 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Christo defuit fides et spes, propter id quod est imperfectionis in eis. Sed loco fidei, habuit apertam visionem; et loco spei, plenam comprehensionem. Et sic fuit perfecta caritas in eo. Reply to Objection 3. In Christ there was neither faith nor hope, on account of their implying an imperfection. But instead of faith, He had manifest vision, and instead of hope, full comprehension [See above, 4, 3]: so that in Him was perfect charity.
q. 66 pr. Deinde considerandum est de aequalitate virtutum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum virtus possit esse maior vel minor. Secundo, utrum omnes virtutes simul in eodem existentes, sint aequales. Tertio, de comparatione virtutum moralium ad intellectuales. Quarto, de comparatione virtutum moralium ad invicem. Quinto, de comparatione virtutum intellectualium ad invicem. Sexto, de comparatione virtutum theologicarum ad invicem. Question 66. Equality among the virtues Can one virtue be greater or less than another? Are all the virtues existing together in one subject equal? Moral virtue in comparison with intellectual virtue The moral virtues as compared with one another The intellectual virtues in comparison with one another The theological virtues in comparison with one another
q. 66 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus non possit esse maior vel minor. Dicitur enim in Apoc. XXI, quod latera civitatis Ierusalem sunt aequalia. Per haec autem significantur virtutes, ut Glossa dicit ibidem. Ergo omnes virtutes sunt aequales. Non ergo potest esse virtus maior virtute. Objection 1. It would seem that one virtue cannot be greater or less than another. For it is written (Apocalypse 21:16) that the sides of the city of Jerusalem are equal; and a gloss says that the sides denote the virtues. Therefore all virtues are equal; and consequently one cannot be greater than another.
q. 66 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne illud cuius ratio consistit in maximo, non potest esse maius vel minus. Sed ratio virtutis consistit in maximo, est enim virtus ultimum potentiae, ut philosophus dicit in I de caelo; et Augustinus etiam dicit, in II de Lib. Arb., quod virtutes sunt maxima bona, quibus nullus potest male uti. Ergo videtur quod virtus non possit esse maior neque minor. Objection 2. Further, a thing that, by its nature, consists in a maximum, cannot be more or less. Now the nature of virtue consists in a maximum, for virtue is "the limit of power," as the Philosopher states (De Coelo i, text. 116); and Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19) that "virtues are very great boons, and no one can use them to evil purpose." Therefore it seems that one virtue cannot be greater or less than another.
q. 66 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, quantitas effectus pensatur secundum virtutem agentis. Sed virtutes perfectae, quae sunt virtutes infusae, sunt a Deo, cuius virtus est uniformis et infinita. Ergo videtur quod virtus non possit esse maior virtute. Objection 3. Further, the quantity of an effect is measured by the power of the agent. But perfect, viz. infused virtues, are from God Whose power is uniform and infinite. Therefore it seems that one virtue cannot be greater than another.
q. 66 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, ubicumque potest esse augmentum et superabundantia, potest esse inaequalitas. Sed in virtutibus invenitur superabundantia et augmentum, dicitur enim Matth. V, nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum; et Proverb. XV dicitur, in abundanti iustitia virtus maxima est. Ergo videtur quod virtus possit esse maior vel minor. On the contrary, Wherever there can be increase and greater abundance, there can be inequality. Now virtues admit of greater abundance and increase: for it is written (Matthew 5:20): "Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven": and (Proverbs 15:5): "In abundant justice there is the greatest strength [virtus]." Therefore it seems that a virtue can be greater or less than another.
q. 66 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod cum quaeritur utrum virtus una possit esse maior alia, dupliciter intelligi potest quaestio. Uno modo, in virtutibus specie differentibus. Et sic manifestum est quod una virtus est alia maior. Semper enim est potior causa suo effectu, et in effectibus, tanto aliquid est potius, quanto est causae propinquius. Manifestum est autem ex dictis quod causa et radix humani boni est ratio. Et ideo prudentia, quae perficit rationem, praefertur in bonitate aliis virtutibus moralibus, perficientibus vim appetitivam inquantum participat rationem. Et in his etiam tanto est una altera melior, quanto magis ad rationem accedit. Unde et iustitia, quae est in voluntate, praefertur aliis virtutibus moralibus, et fortitudo, quae est in irascibili, praefertur temperantiae, quae est in concupiscibili, quae minus participat rationem, ut patet in VII Ethic. Alio modo potest intelligi quaestio in virtute eiusdem speciei. Et sic, secundum ea quae dicta sunt supra, cum de intensionibus habituum ageretur, virtus potest dupliciter dici maior et minor, uno modo, secundum seipsam; alio modo, ex parte participantis subiecti. Si igitur secundum seipsam consideretur, magnitudo vel parvitas eius attenditur secundum ea ad quae se extendit. Quicumque autem habet aliquam virtutem, puta temperantiam, habet ipsam quantum ad omnia ad quae se temperantia extendit. Quod de scientia et arte non contingit, non enim quicumque est grammaticus, scit omnia quae ad grammaticam pertinent. Et secundum hoc bene dixerunt Stoici, ut Simplicius dicit in commento praedicamentorum, quod virtus non recipit magis et minus, sicut scientia vel ars; eo quod ratio virtutis consistit in maximo. Si vero consideretur virtus ex parte subiecti participantis, sic contingit virtutem esse maiorem vel minorem, sive secundum diversa tempora, in eodem; sive in diversis hominibus. Quia ad attingendum medium virtutis, quod est secundum rationem rectam, unus est melius dispositus quam alius, vel propter maiorem assuetudinem, vel propter meliorem dispositionem naturae, vel propter perspicacius iudicium rationis, aut etiam propter maius gratiae donum, quod unicuique donatur secundum mensuram donationis Christi, ut dicitur ad Ephes. IV. Et in hoc deficiebant Stoici, aestimantes nullum esse virtuosum dicendum, nisi qui summe fuerit dispositus ad virtutem. Non enim exigitur ad rationem virtutis, quod attingat rectae rationis medium in indivisibili, sicut Stoici putabant, sed sufficit prope medium esse, ut in II Ethic. dicitur. Idem etiam indivisibile signum unus propinquius et promptius attingit quam alius, sicut etiam patet in sagittatoribus trahentibus ad certum signum. I answer that, When it is asked whether one virtue can be greater than another, the question can be taken in two senses. First, as applying to virtues of different species. In this sense it is clear that one virtue is greater than another; since a cause is always more excellent than its effect; and among effects, those nearest to the cause are the most excellent. Now it is clear from what has been said (18, 5; 61, 2) that the cause and root of human good is the reason. Hence prudence which perfects the reason, surpasses in goodness the other moral virtues which perfect the appetitive power, in so far as it partakes of reason. And among these, one is better than another, according as it approaches nearer to the reason. Consequently justice, which is in the will, excels the remaining moral virtues; and fortitude, which is in the irascible part, stands before temperance, which is in the concupiscible, which has a smaller share of reason, as stated in Ethic. vii, 6. The question can be taken in another way, as referring to virtues of the same species. In this way, according to what was said above (Question 52, Article 1), when we were treating of the intensity of habits, virtue may be said to be greater or less in two ways: first, in itself; secondly with regard to the subject that partakes of it. If we consider it in itself, we shall call it greater or little, according to the things to which it extends. Now whosoever has a virtue, e.g. temperance, has it in respect of whatever temperance extends to. But this does not apply to science and art: for every grammarian does not know everything relating to grammar. And in this sense the Stoics said rightly, as Simplicius states in his Commentary on the Predicaments, that virtue cannot be more or less, as science and art can; because the nature of virtue consists in a maximum. If, however, we consider virtue on the part of the subject, it may then be greater or less, either in relation to different times, or in different men. Because one man is better disposed than another to attain to the mean of virtue which is defined by right reason; and this, on account of either greater habituation, or a better natural disposition, or a more discerning judgment of reason, or again a greater gift of grace, which is given to each one "according to the measure of the giving of Christ," as stated in Ephesians 4:9. And here the Stoics erred, for they held that no man should be deemed virtuous, unless he were, in the highest degree, disposed to virtue. Because the nature of virtue does not require that man should reach the mean of right reason as though it were an indivisible point, as the Stoics thought; but it is enough that he should approach the mean, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6. Moreover, one same indivisible mark is reached more nearly and more readily by one than by another: as may be seen when several arches aim at a fixed target.
q. 66 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aequalitas illa non est secundum quantitatem absolutam, sed est secundum proportionem intelligenda, quia omnes virtutes proportionaliter crescunt in homine, ut infra dicetur. Reply to Objection 1. This equality is not one of absolute quantity, but of proportion: because all virtues grow in a man proportionately, as we shall see further on (2).
q. 66 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illud ultimum quod pertinet ad virtutem, potest habere rationem magis vel minus boni secundum praedictos modos, cum non sit ultimum indivisibile, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. This "limit" which belongs to virtue, can have the character of something "more" or "less" good, in the ways explained above: since, as stated, it is not an indivisible limit.
q. 66 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus non operatur secundum necessitatem naturae, sed secundum ordinem suae sapientiae, secundum quam diversam mensuram virtutis hominibus largitur, secundum illud ad Ephes. IV, unicuique vestrum data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi. Reply to Objection 3. God does not work by necessity of nature, but according to the order of His wisdom, whereby He bestows on men various measures of virtue, according to Ephesians 4:7: "To every one of you [Vulgate: 'us'] is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ."
q. 66 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnes virtutes in uno et eodem sint aequaliter intensae. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. VII, unusquisque habet proprium donum a Deo, alius quidem sic, alius autem sic. Non esset autem unum donum magis proprium alicui quam aliud, si omnes virtutes dono Dei infusas quilibet aequaliter haberet. Ergo videtur quod non omnes virtutes sint aequales in uno et eodem. Objection 1. It would seem that the virtues in one same man are not all equally intense. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:7): "Everyone hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that." Now one gift would not be more proper than another to a man, if God infused all the virtues equally into each man. Therefore it seems that the virtues are not all equal in one and the same man.
q. 66 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, si omnes virtutes essent aeque intensae in uno et eodem, sequeretur quod quicumque excederet aliquem in una virtute, excederet ipsum in omnibus aliis virtutibus. Sed hoc patet esse falsum, quia diversi sancti de diversis virtutibus praecipue laudantur; sicut Abraham de fide, Moyses de mansuetudine, Iob de patientia. Unde et de quolibet confessore cantatur in Ecclesia, non est inventus similis illi, qui conservaret legem excelsi; eo quod quilibet habuit praerogativam alicuius virtutis. Non ergo omnes virtutes sunt aequales in uno et eodem. Objection 2. Further, if all the virtues were equally intense in one and the same man, it would follow that whoever surpasses another in one virtue, would surpass him in all the others. But this is clearly not the case: since various saints are specially praised for different virtues; e.g. Abraham for faith (Romans 4), Moses for his meekness (Numbers 7:3), Job for his patience (Tobit 2:12). This is why of each Confessor the Church sings: "There was not found his like in keeping the law of the most High," [See Lesson in the Mass Statuit (Dominican Missal)], since each one was remarkable for some virtue or other. Therefore the virtues are not all equal in one and the same man.
q. 66 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, quanto habitus est intensior, tanto homo secundum ipsum delectabilius et promptius operatur. Sed experimento patet quod unus homo delectabilius et promptius operatur actum unius virtutis quam actum alterius. Non ergo omnes virtutes sunt aequales in uno et eodem. Objection 3. Further, the more intense a habit is, the greater one's pleasure and readiness in making use of it. Now experience shows that a man is more pleased and ready to make use of one virtue than of another. Therefore the virtues are not all equal in one and the same man.
q. 66 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in VI de Trin., quod quicumque sunt aequales in fortitudine, aequales sunt in prudentia et temperantia; et sic de aliis. Hoc autem non esset, nisi omnes virtutes unius hominis essent aequales. Ergo omnes virtutes unius hominis sunt aequales. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 4) that "those who are equal in fortitude are equal in prudence and temperance," and so on. Now it would not be so, unless all the virtues in one man were equal. Therefore all virtues are equal in one man.
q. 66 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quantitas virtutum, sicut ex dictis patet, potest attendi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum rationem speciei. Et sic non est dubium quod una virtus unius hominis sit maior quam alia, sicut caritas fide et spe. Alio modo potest attendi secundum participationem subiecti, prout scilicet intenditur vel remittitur in subiecto. Et secundum hoc, omnes virtutes unius hominis sunt aequales quadam aequalitate proportionis, inquantum aequaliter crescunt in homine, sicut digiti manus sunt inaequales secundum quantitatem, sed sunt aequales secundum proportionem, cum proportionaliter augeantur. Huiusmodi autem aequalitatis oportet eodem modo rationem accipere, sicut et connexionis, aequalitas enim est quaedam connexio virtutum secundum quantitatem. Dictum est autem supra quod ratio connexionis virtutum dupliciter assignari potest. Uno modo, secundum intellectum eorum qui intelligunt per has quatuor virtutes, quatuor conditiones generales virtutum, quarum una simul invenitur cum aliis in qualibet materia. Et sic virtus in qualibet materia non potest aequalis dici, nisi habeat omnes istas conditiones aequales. Et hanc rationem aequalitatis virtutum assignat Augustinus, in VI de Trin., dicens, si dixeris aequales esse istos fortitudine, sed illum praestare prudentia; sequitur quod huius fortitudo minus prudens sit. Ac per hoc, nec fortitudine aequales sunt, quando est illius fortitudo prudentior. Atque ita de ceteris virtutibus invenies, si omnes eadem consideratione percurras. Alio modo assignata est ratio connexionis virtutum secundum eos qui intelligunt huiusmodi virtutes habere materias determinatas. Et secundum hoc, ratio connexionis virtutum moralium accipitur ex parte prudentiae, et ex parte caritatis quantum ad virtutes infusas, non autem ex parte inclinationis, quae est ex parte subiecti, ut supra dictum est. Sic igitur et ratio aequalitatis virtutum potest accipi ex parte prudentiae, quantum ad id quod est formale in omnibus virtutibus moralibus, existente enim ratione aequaliter perfecta in uno et eodem, oportet quod proportionaliter secundum rationem rectam medium constituatur in qualibet materia virtutum. Quantum vero ad id quod est materiale in virtutibus moralibus, scilicet inclinationem ipsam ad actum virtutis; potest esse unus homo magis promptus ad actum unius virtutis quam ad actum alterius, vel ex natura, vel ex consuetudine, vel etiam ex gratiae dono. I answer that, As explained above (Article 1), the comparative greatness of virtues can be understood in two ways. First, as referring to their specific nature: and in this way there is no doubt that in a man one virtue is greater than another, for example, charity, than faith and hope. Secondly, it may be taken as referring to the degree of participation by the subject, according as a virtue becomes intense or remiss in its subject. In this sense all the virtues in one man are equal with an equality of proportion, in so far as their growth in man is equal: thus the fingers are unequal in size, but equal in proportion, since they grow in proportion to one another. Now the nature of this equality is to be explained in the same way as the connection of virtues; for equality among virtues is their connection as to greatness. Now it has been stated above (Question 65, Article 1) that a twofold connection of virtues may be assigned. The first is according to the opinion of those who understood these four virtues to be four general properties of virtues, each of which is found together with the other in any matter. In this way virtues cannot be said to be equal in any matter unless they have all these properties equal. Augustine alludes to this kind of equality (De Trin. vi, 4) when he says: "If you say these men are equal in fortitude, but that one is more prudent than the other; it follows that the fortitude of the latter is less prudent. Consequently they are not really equal in fortitude, since the former's fortitude is more prudent. You will find that this applies to the other virtues if you run over them all in the same way." The other kind of connection among virtues followed the opinion of those who hold these virtues to have their own proper respective matters (65, A1,2). In this way the connection among moral virtues results from prudence, and, as to the infused virtues, from charity, and not from the inclination, which is on the part of the subject, as stated above (Question 65, Article 1). Accordingly the nature of the equality among virtues can also be considered on the part of prudence, in regard to that which is formal in all the moral virtues: for in one and the same man, so long as his reason has the same degree of perfection, the mean will be proportionately defined according to right reason in each matter of virtue. But in regard to that which is material in the moral virtues, viz. the inclination to the virtuous act, one may be readier to perform the act of one virtue, than the act of another virtue, and this either from nature, or from habituation, or again by the grace of God.
q. 66 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum apostoli potest intelligi de donis gratiae gratis datae, quae non sunt communia omnibus, nec omnia aequalia in uno et eodem. Vel potest dici quod refertur ad mensuram gratiae gratum facientis; secundum quam unus abundat in omnibus virtutibus plus quam alius, propter maiorem abundantiam prudentiae, vel etiam caritatis, in qua connectuntur omnes virtutes infusae. Reply to Objection 1. This saying of the Apostle may be taken to refer to the gifts of gratuitous grace, which are not common to all, nor are all of them equal in the one same subject. We might also say that it refers to the measure of sanctifying grace, by reason of which one man has all the virtues in greater abundance than another man, on account of his greater abundance of prudence, or also of charity, in which all the infused virtues are connected.
q. 66 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unus sanctus laudatur praecipue de una virtute, et alius de alia, propter excellentiorem promptitudinem ad actum unius virtutis, quam ad actum alterius. Reply to Objection 2. One saint is praised chiefly for one virtue, another saint for another virtue, on account of his more admirable readiness for the act of one virtue than for the act of another virtue.
q. 66 a. 2 ad 3 Et per hoc etiam patet responsio ad tertium. This suffices for the Reply to the Third Objection.
q. 66 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales praeemineant intellectualibus. Quod enim magis est necessarium, et permanentius, est melius. Sed virtutes morales sunt permanentiores etiam disciplinis, quae sunt virtutes intellectuales, et sunt etiam magis necessariae ad vitam humanam. Ergo sunt praeferendae virtutibus intellectualibus. Objection 1. It would seem that the moral virtues are better than the intellectual. Because that which is more necessary, and more lasting, is better. Now the moral virtues are "more lasting even than the sciences" (Ethic. i) which are intellectual virtues: and, moreover, they are more necessary for human life. Therefore they are preferable to the intellectual virtues.
q. 66 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, de ratione virtutis est quod bonum faciat habentem. Sed secundum virtutes morales dicitur homo bonus, non autem secundum virtutes intellectuales, nisi forte secundum solam prudentiam. Ergo virtus moralis est melior quam intellectualis. Objection 2. Further, virtue is defined as "that which makes its possessor good." Now man is said to be good in respect of moral virtue, and art in respect of intellectual virtue, except perhaps in respect of prudence alone. Therefore moral is better than intellectual virtue.
q. 66 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, finis est nobilior his quae sunt ad finem. Sed sicut dicitur in VI Ethic., virtus moralis facit rectam intentionem finis; prudentia autem facit rectam electionem eorum quae sunt ad finem. Ergo virtus moralis est nobilior prudentia, quae est virtus intellectualis circa moralia. Objection 3. Further, the end is more excellent than the means. But according to Ethic. vi, 12, "moral virtue gives right intention of the end; whereas prudence gives right choice of the means." Therefore moral virtue is more excellent than prudence, which is the intellectual virtue that regards moral matters.
q. 66 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, virtus moralis est in rationali per participationem; virtus autem intellectualis in rationali per essentiam, sicut dicitur in I Ethic. Sed rationale per essentiam est nobilius quam rationale per participationem. Ergo virtus intellectualis est nobilior virtute morali. On the contrary, Moral virtue is in that part of the soul which is rational by participation; while intellectual virtue is in the essentially rational part, as stated in Ethic. i, 13. Now rational by essence is more excellent than rational by participation. Therefore intellectual virtue is better than moral virtue.
q. 66 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid potest dici maius vel minus, dupliciter, uno modo, simpliciter; alio modo, secundum quid. Nihil enim prohibet aliquid esse melius simpliciter, ut philosophari quam ditari, quod tamen non est melius secundum quid, idest necessitatem patienti. Simpliciter autem consideratur unumquodque, quando consideratur secundum propriam rationem suae speciei. Habet autem virtus speciem ex obiecto, ut ex dictis patet. Unde, simpliciter loquendo, illa virtus nobilior est quae habet nobilius obiectum. Manifestum est autem quod obiectum rationis est nobilius quam obiectum appetitus, ratio enim apprehendit aliquid in universali; sed appetitus tendit in res, quae habent esse particulare. Unde, simpliciter loquendo, virtutes intellectuales, quae perficiunt rationem, sunt nobiliores quam morales, quae perficiunt appetitum. Sed si consideretur virtus in ordine ad actum, sic virtus moralis, quae perficit appetitum, cuius est movere alias potentias ad actum, ut supra dictum est, nobilior est. Et quia virtus dicitur ex eo quod est principium alicuius actus, cum sit perfectio potentiae, sequitur etiam quod ratio virtutis magis competat virtutibus moralibus quam virtutibus intellectualibus, quamvis virtutes intellectuales sint nobiliores habitus simpliciter. I answer that, A thing may be said to be greater or less in two ways: first, simply; secondly, relatively. For nothing hinders something from being better simply, e.g. "learning than riches," and yet not better relatively, i.e. "for one who is in want" [Aristotle, Topic. iii.]. Now to consider a thing simply is to consider it in its proper specific nature. Accordingly, a virtue takes its species from its object, as explained above (54, 2; 60, 1). Hence, speaking simply, that virtue is more excellent, which has the more excellent object. Now it is evident that the object of the reason is more excellent than the object of the appetite: since the reason apprehends things in the universal, while the appetite tends to things themselves, whose being is restricted to the particular. Consequently, speaking simply, the intellectual virtues, which perfect the reason, are more excellent than the moral virtues, which perfect the appetite. But if we consider virtue in its relation to act, then moral virtue, which perfects the appetite, whose function it is to move the other powers to act, as stated above (Question 9, Article 1), is more excellent. And since virtue is so called from its being a principle of action, for it is the perfection of a power, it follows again that the nature of virtue agrees more with moral than with intellectual virtue, though the intellectual virtues are more excellent habits, simply speaking.
q. 66 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutes morales sunt magis permanentes quam intellectuales, propter exercitium earum in his quae pertinent ad vitam communem. Sed manifestum est quod obiecta disciplinarum, quae sunt necessaria et semper eodem modo se habentia, sunt permanentiora quam obiecta virtutum moralium, quae sunt quaedam particularia agibilia. Quod autem virtutes morales sunt magis necessariae ad vitam humanam, non ostendit eas esse nobiliores simpliciter, sed quoad hoc. Quinimmo virtutes intellectuales speculativae, ex hoc ipso quod non ordinantur ad aliud sicut utile ordinatur ad finem, sunt digniores. Hoc enim contingit quia secundum eas quodammodo inchoatur in nobis beatitudo, quae consistit in cognitione veritatis, sicut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. The moral virtues are more lasting than the intellectual virtues, because they are practised in matters pertaining to the life of the community. Yet it is evident that the objects of the sciences, which are necessary and invariable, are more lasting than the objects of moral virtue, which are certain particular matters of action. That the moral virtues are more necessary for human life, proves that they are more excellent, not simply, but relatively. Indeed, the speculative intellectual virtues, from the very fact that they are not referred to something else, as a useful thing is referred to an end, are more excellent. The reason for this is that in them we have a kind of beginning of that happiness which consists in the knowledge of truth, as stated above (Question 3, Article 6).
q. 66 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod secundum virtutes morales dicitur homo bonus simpliciter, et non secundum intellectuales, ea ratione, quia appetitus movet alias potentias ad suum actum, ut supra dictum est. Unde per hoc etiam non probatur nisi quod virtus moralis sit melior secundum quid. Reply to Objection 2. The reason why man is said to be good simply, in respect of moral virtue, but not in respect of intellectual virtue, is because the appetite moves the other powers to their acts, as stated above (Question 56, Article 3). Wherefore this argument, too, proves merely that moral virtue is better relatively.
q. 66 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod prudentia non solum dirigit virtutes morales in eligendo ea quae sunt ad finem, sed etiam in praestituendo finem. Est autem finis uniuscuiusque virtutis moralis attingere medium in propria materia, quod quidem medium determinatur secundum rectam rationem prudentiae, ut dicitur in II et VI Ethic. Reply to Objection 3. Prudence directs the moral virtues not only in the choice of the means, but also in appointing the end. Now the end of each moral virtue is to attain the mean in the matter proper to that virtue; which mean is appointed according to the right ruling of prudence, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6; vi, 13.
q. 66 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia non sit praecipua inter virtutes morales. Maius enim est dare alicui de proprio, quam reddere alicui quod ei debetur. Sed primum pertinet ad liberalitatem; secundum autem ad iustitiam. Ergo videtur quod liberalitas sit maior virtus quam iustitia. Objection 1. It would seem that justice is not the chief of the moral virtues. For it is better to give of one's own than to pay what is due. Now the former belongs to liberality, the latter to justice. Therefore liberality is apparently a greater virtue than justice.
q. 66 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud videtur esse maximum in unoquoque, quod est perfectissimum in ipso. Sed sicut dicitur Iac. I, patientia opus perfectum habet. Ergo videtur quod patientia sit maior quam iustitia. Objection 2. Further, the chief quality of a thing is, seemingly, that in which it is most perfect. Now, according to James 1:4, "Patience hath a perfect work." Therefore it would seem that patience is greater than justice.
q. 66 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, magnanimitas operatur magnum, in omnibus virtutibus, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Ergo magnificat etiam ipsam iustitiam. Est igitur maior quam iustitia. Objection 3. Further, "Magnanimity has a great influence on every virtue," as stated in Ethic. iv, 3. Therefore it magnifies even justice. Therefore it is greater than justice.
q. 66 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod iustitia est praeclarissima virtutum. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "justice is the most excellent of the virtues."
q. 66 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod virtus aliqua secundum suam speciem potest dici maior vel minor, vel simpliciter, vel secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem virtus dicitur maior, secundum quod in ea maius bonum rationis relucet, ut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc, iustitia inter omnes virtutes morales praecellit, tanquam propinquior rationi. Quod patet et ex subiecto, et ex obiecto. Ex subiecto quidem, quia est in voluntate sicut in subiecto, voluntas autem est appetitus rationalis, ut ex dictis patet. Secundum autem obiectum sive materiam, quia est circa operationes, quibus homo ordinatur non solum in seipso, sed etiam ad alterum. Unde iustitia est praeclarissima virtutum, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Inter alias autem virtutes morales, quae sunt circa passiones, tanto in unaquaque magis relucet rationis bonum, quanto circa maiora motus appetitivus subditur rationi. Maximum autem in his quae ad hominem pertinent, est vita, a qua omnia alia dependent. Et ideo fortitudo, quae appetitivum motum subdit rationi in his quae ad mortem et vitam pertinent, primum locum tenet inter virtutes morales quae sunt circa passiones, tamen ordinatur infra iustitiam. Unde philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric., quod necesse est maximas esse virtutes, quae sunt aliis honoratissimae, siquidem est virtus potentia benefactiva. Propter hoc, fortes et iustos maxime honorant, haec quidem enim in bello, scilicet fortitudo; haec autem, scilicet iustitia, et in bello et in pace utilis est. Post fortitudinem autem ordinatur temperantia, quae subiicit rationi appetitum circa ea quae immediate ordinantur ad vitam, vel in eodem secundum numerum, vel in eodem secundum speciem, scilicet in cibis et venereis. Et sic istae tres virtutes, simul cum prudentia, dicuntur esse principales etiam dignitate. Secundum quid autem dicitur aliqua virtus esse maior, secundum quod adminiculum vel ornamentum praebet principali virtuti. Sicut substantia est simpliciter dignior accidente; aliquod tamen accidens est secundum quid dignius substantia, inquantum perficit substantiam in aliquo esse accidentali. I answer that, A virtue considered in its species may be greater or less, either simply or relatively. A virtue is said to be greater simply, whereby a greater rational good shines forth, as stated above (Article 1). In this way justice is the most excellent of all the moral virtues, as being most akin to reason. This is made evident by considering its subject and its object: its subject, because this is the will, and the will is the rational appetite, as stated above (8, 1; 26, 1): its object or matter, because it is about operations, whereby man is set in order not only in himself, but also in regard to another. Hence "justice is the most excellent of virtues" (Ethic. v, 1). Among the other moral virtues, which are about the passions, the more excellent the matter in which the appetitive movement is subjected to reason, so much the more does the rational good shine forth in each. Now in things touching man, the chief of all is life, on which all other things depend. Consequently fortitude which subjects the appetitive movement to reason in matters of life and death, holds the first place among those moral virtues that are about the passions, but is subordinate to justice. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. 1) that "those virtues must needs be greatest which receive the most praise: since virtue is a power of doing good. Hence the brave man and the just man are honored more than others; because the former," i.e. fortitude, "is useful in war, and the latter," i.e. justice, "both in war and in peace." After fortitude comes temperance, which subjects the appetite to reason in matters directly relating to life, in the one individual, or in the one species, viz. in matters of food and of sex. And so these three virtues, together with prudence, are called principal virtues, in excellence also. A virtue is said to be greater relatively, by reason of its helping or adorning a principal virtue: even as substance is more excellent simply than accident: and yet relatively some particular accident is more excellent than substance in so far as it perfects substance in some accidental mode of being.
q. 66 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod actus liberalitatis oportet quod fundetur super actum iustitiae, non enim esset liberalis datio, si non de proprio daret, ut in II Polit. dicitur. Unde liberalitas sine iustitia esse non posset, quae secernit suum a non suo. Iustitia autem potest esse sine liberalitate. Unde iustitia simpliciter est maior liberalitate, tanquam communior, et fundamentum ipsius, liberalitas autem est secundum quid maior, cum sit quidam ornatus iustitiae, et complementum eius. Reply to Objection 1. The act of liberality needs to be founded on an act of justice, for "a man is not liberal in giving, unless he gives of his own" (Polit. ii, 3). Hence there could be no liberality apart from justice, which discerns between "meum" and "tuum": whereas justice can be without liberality. Hence justice is simply greater than liberality, as being more universal, and as being its foundation: while liberality is greater relatively since it is an ornament and an addition to justice.
q. 66 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod patientia dicitur habere opus perfectum in tolerantia malorum, in quibus non solum excludit iniustam vindictam, quam etiam excludit iustitia; neque solum odium quod facit caritas; neque solum iram, quod facit mansuetudo; sed etiam excludit tristitiam inordinatam, quae est radix omnium praedictorum. Et ideo in hoc est perfectior et maior, quod in hac materia extirpat radicem. Non autem est simpliciter perfectior omnibus aliis virtutibus. Quia fortitudo non solum sustinet molestias absque perturbatione, quod est patientiae, sed etiam ingerit se eis, cum opus fuerit. Unde quicumque est fortis, est patiens, sed non convertitur, est enim patientia quaedam fortitudinis pars. Reply to Objection 2. Patience is said to have "a perfect work," by enduring evils, wherein it excludes not only unjust revenge, which is also excluded by justice; not only hatred, which is also suppressed by charity; nor only anger, which is calmed by gentleness; but also inordinate sorrow, which is the root of all the above. Wherefore it is more perfect and excellent through plucking up the root in this matter. It is not, however, more perfect than all the other virtues simply. Because fortitude not only endures trouble without being disturbed, but also fights against it if necessary. Hence whoever is brave is patient; but the converse does not hold, for patience is a part of fortitude.
q. 66 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod magnanimitas non potest esse nisi aliis virtutibus praeexistentibus, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Unde comparatur ad alias sicut ornatus earum. Et sic secundum quid est maior omnibus aliis, non tamen simpliciter. Reply to Objection 3. There can be no magnanimity without the other virtues, as stated in Ethic. iv, 3. Hence it is compared to them as their ornament, so that relatively it is greater than all the others, but not simply.
q. 66 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sapientia non sit maxima inter virtutes intellectuales. Imperans enim maius est eo cui imperatur. Sed prudentia videtur imperare sapientiae, dicitur enim I Ethic., quod quales disciplinarum debitum est esse in civitatibus, et quales unumquemque addiscere, et usquequo, haec praeordinat, scilicet politica, quae ad prudentiam pertinet, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Cum igitur inter disciplinas etiam sapientia contineatur, videtur quod prudentia sit maior quam sapientia. Objection 1. It would seem that wisdom is not the greatest of the intellectual virtues. Because the commander is greater than the one commanded. Now prudence seems to command wisdom, for it is stated in Ethic. i, 2 that political science, which belongs to prudence (Ethic. vi, 8), "orders that sciences should be cultivated in states, and to which of these each individual should devote himself, and to what extent." Since, then, wisdom is one of the sciences, it seems that prudence is greater than wisdom.
q. 66 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, de ratione virtutis est quod ordinet hominem ad felicitatem, est enim virtus dispositio perfecti ad optimum, ut dicitur in VII Physic. Sed prudentia est recta ratio agibilium, per quae homo ad felicitatem perducitur, sapientia autem non considerat humanos actus, quibus ad beatitudinem pervenitur. Ergo prudentia est maior virtus quam sapientia. Objection 2. Further, it belongs to the nature of virtue to direct man to happiness: because virtue is "the disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best," as stated in Phys. vii, text. 17. Now prudence is "right reason about things to be done," whereby man is brought to happiness: whereas wisdom takes no notice of human acts, whereby man attains happiness. Therefore prudence is a greater virtue than wisdom.
q. 66 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, quanto cognitio est perfectior, tanto videtur esse maior. Sed perfectiorem cognitionem habere possumus de rebus humanis, de quibus est scientia, quam de rebus divinis, de quibus est sapientia, ut distinguit Augustinus in XII de Trin., quia divina incomprehensibilia sunt, secundum illud Iob XXXVI, ecce Deus magnus, vincens scientiam nostram. Ergo scientia est maior virtus quam sapientia. Objection 3. Further, the more perfect knowledge is, the greater it seems to be. Now we can have more perfect knowledge of human affairs, which are the subject of science, than of Divine things, which are the object of wisdom, which is the distinction given by Augustine (De Trin. xii, 14): because Divine things are incomprehensible, according to Job 26:26: "Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge." Therefore science is a greater virtue than wisdom.
q. 66 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, cognitio principiorum est dignior quam cognitio conclusionum. Sed sapientia concludit ex principiis indemonstrabilibus, quorum est intellectus; sicut et aliae scientiae. Ergo intellectus est maior virtus quam sapientia. Objection 4. Further, knowledge of principles is more excellent than knowledge of conclusions. But wisdom draws conclusions from indemonstrable principles which are the object of the virtue of understanding, even as other sciences do. Therefore understanding is a greater virtue than wisdom.
q. 66 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod sapientia est sicut caput inter virtutes intellectuales. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 7) that wisdom is "the head" among "the intellectual virtues."
q. 66 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, magnitudo virtutis secundum suam speciem, consideratur ex obiecto. Obiectum autem sapientiae praecellit inter obiecta omnium virtutum intellectualium, considerat enim causam altissimam, quae Deus est, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys. Et quia per causam iudicatur de effectu, et per causam superiorem de causis inferioribus; inde est quod sapientia habet iudicium de omnibus aliis virtutibus intellectualibus; et eius est ordinare omnes; et ipsa est quasi architectonica respectu omnium. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), the greatness of a virtue, as to its species, is taken from its object. Now the object of wisdom surpasses the objects of all the intellectual virtues: because wisdom considers the Supreme Cause, which is God, as stated at the beginning of the Metaphysics. And since it is by the cause that we judge of an effect, and by the higher cause that we judge of the lower effects; hence it is that wisdom exercises judgment over all the other intellectual virtues, directs them all, and is the architect of them all.
q. 66 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum prudentia sit circa res humanas, sapientia vero circa causam altissimam; impossibile est quod prudentia sit maior virtus quam sapientia, nisi, ut dicitur in VI Ethic., maximum eorum quae sunt in mundo, esset homo. Unde dicendum est, sicut in eodem libro dicitur, quod prudentia non imperat ipsi sapientiae, sed potius e converso, quia spiritualis iudicat omnia, et ipse a nemine iudicatur, ut dicitur I ad Cor. II. Non enim prudentia habet se intromittere de altissimis, quae considerat sapientia, sed imperat de his quae ordinantur ad sapientiam, scilicet quomodo homines debeant ad sapientiam pervenire. Unde in hoc est prudentia, seu politica, ministra sapientiae, introducit enim ad eam, praeparans ei viam, sicut ostiarius ad regem. Reply to Objection 1. Since prudence is about human affairs, and wisdom about the Supreme Cause, it is impossible for prudence to be a greater virtue than wisdom, "unless," as stated in Ethic. vi, 7, "man were the greatest thing in the world." Wherefore we must say, as stated in the same book (Ethic. vi), that prudence does not command wisdom, but vice versa: because "the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged by no man" (1 Corinthians 2:15). For prudence has no business with supreme matters which are the object of wisdom: but its command covers things directed to wisdom, viz. how men are to obtain wisdom. Wherefore prudence, or political science, is, in this way, the servant of wisdom; for it leads to wisdom, preparing the way for her, as the doorkeeper for the king.
q. 66 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod prudentia considerat ea quibus pervenitur ad felicitatem, sed sapientia considerat ipsum obiectum felicitatis, quod est altissimum intelligibile. Et si quidem esset perfecta consideratio sapientiae respectu sui obiecti, esset perfecta felicitas in actu sapientiae. Sed quia actus sapientiae in hac vita est imperfectus respectu principalis obiecti, quod est Deus; ideo actus sapientiae est quaedam inchoatio seu participatio futurae felicitatis. Et sic propinquius se habet ad felicitatem quam prudentia. Reply to Objection 2. Prudence considers the means of acquiring happiness, but wisdom considers the very object of happiness, viz. the Supreme Intelligible. And if indeed the consideration of wisdom were perfect in respect of its object, there would be perfect happiness in the act of wisdom: but as, in this life, the act of wisdom is imperfect in respect of its principal object, which is God, it follows that the act of wisdom is a beginning or participation of future happiness, so that wisdom is nearer than prudence to happiness.
q. 66 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in I de anima, una notitia praefertur alteri aut ex eo quod est nobiliorum, aut propter certitudinem. Si igitur subiecta sint aequalia in bonitate et nobilitate, illa quae est certior, erit maior virtus. Sed illa quae est minus certa de altioribus et maioribus, praefertur ei quae est magis certa de inferioribus rebus. Unde philosophus dicit, in II de caelo, quod magnum est de rebus caelestibus aliquid posse cognoscere etiam debili et topica ratione. Et in I de partibus Animal., dicit quod amabile est magis parvum aliquid cognoscere de rebus nobilioribus quam multa cognoscere de rebus ignobilioribus. Sapientia igitur ad quam pertinet Dei cognitio, homini, maxime in statu huius vitae, non potest perfecte advenire, ut sit quasi eius possessio; sed hoc solius Dei est, ut dicitur in I Metaphys. Sed tamen illa modica cognitio quae per sapientiam de Deo haberi potest, omni alii cognitioni praefertur. Reply to Objection 3. As the Philosopher says (De Anima i, text. 1), "one knowledge is preferable to another, either because it is about a higher object, or because it is more certain." Hence if the objects be equally good and sublime, that virtue will be greater which possesses more certain knowledge. But a virtue which is less certain about a higher and better object, is preferable to that which is more certain about an object of inferior degree. Wherefore the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii, text. 60) that "it is a great thing to be able to know something about celestial beings, though it be based on weak and probable reasoning"; and again (De Part. Animal. i, 5) that "it is better to know a little about sublime things, than much about mean things." Accordingly wisdom, to which knowledge about God pertains, is beyond the reach of man, especially in this life, so as to be his possession: for this "belongs to God alone" (Metaph. i, 2): and yet this little knowledge about God which we can have through wisdom is preferable to all other knowledge.
q. 66 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod veritas et cognitio principiorum indemonstrabilium dependet ex ratione terminorum, cognito enim quid est totum et quid pars, statim cognoscitur quod omne totum est maius sua parte. Cognoscere autem rationem entis et non entis, et totius et partis, et aliorum quae consequuntur ad ens, ex quibus sicut ex terminis constituuntur principia indemonstrabilia, pertinet ad sapientiam, quia ens commune est proprius effectus causae altissimae, scilicet Dei. Et ideo sapientia non solum utitur principiis indemonstrabilibus, quorum est intellectus, concludendo ex eis, sicut aliae scientiae; sed etiam iudicando de eis, et disputando contra negantes. Unde sequitur quod sapientia sit maior virtus quam intellectus. Reply to Objection 4. The truth and knowledge of indemonstrable principles depends on the meaning of the terms: for as soon as we know what is a whole, and what is a part, we know at once that every whole is greater than its part. Now to know the meaning of being and non-being, of whole and part, and of other things consequent to being, which are the terms whereof indemonstrable principles are constituted, is the function of wisdom: since universal being is the proper effect of the Supreme Cause, which is God. And so wisdom makes use of indemonstrable principles which are the object of understanding, not only by drawing conclusions from them, as other sciences do, but also by passing its judgment on them, and by vindicating them against those who deny them. Hence it follows that wisdom is a greater virtue than understanding.
q. 66 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non sit maxima inter virtutes theologicas. Cum enim fides sit in intellectu, spes autem et caritas in vi appetitiva, ut supra dictum est; videtur quod fides comparetur ad spem et caritatem, sicut virtus intellectualis ad moralem. Sed virtus intellectualis est maior morali, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo fides est maior spe et caritate. Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not the greatest of the theological virtues. Because, since faith is in the intellect, while hope and charity are in the appetitive power, it seems that faith is compared to hope and charity, as intellectual to moral virtue. Now intellectual virtue is greater than moral virtue, as was made evident above (Question 62, Article 3). Therefore faith is greater than hope and charity.
q. 66 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, quod se habet ex additione ad aliud, videtur esse maius eo. Sed spes, ut videtur, se habet ex additione ad caritatem, praesupponit enim spes amorem, ut Augustinus dicit in Enchirid.; addit autem quendam motum protensionis in rem amatam. Ergo spes est maior caritate. Objection 2. Further, when two things are added together, the result is greater than either one. Now hope results from something added to charity; for it presupposes love, as Augustine says (Enchiridion viii), and it adds a certain movement of stretching forward to the beloved. Therefore hope is greater than charity.
q. 66 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa est potior effectu. Sed fides et spes sunt causa caritatis, dicitur enim Matth. I, in Glossa, quod fides generat spem, et spes caritatem. Ergo fides et spes sunt maiores caritate. Objection 3. Further, a cause is more noble than its effect. Now faith and hope are the cause of charity: for a gloss on Matthew 1:3 says that "faith begets hope, and hope charity." Therefore faith and hope are greater than charity.
q. 66 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas, tria haec; maior autem horum est caritas. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:13): "Now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
q. 66 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, magnitudo virtutis secundum suam speciem, consideratur ex obiecto. Cum autem tres virtutes theologicae respiciant Deum sicut proprium obiectum, non potest una earum dici maior altera ex hoc quod sit circa maius obiectum; sed ex eo quod una se habet propinquius ad obiectum quam alia. Et hoc modo caritas est maior aliis. Nam aliae important in sui ratione quandam distantiam ab obiecto, est enim fides de non visis, spes autem de non habitis. Sed amor caritatis est de eo quod iam habetur, est enim amatum quodammodo in amante, et etiam amans per affectum trahitur ad unionem amati; propter quod dicitur I Ioan. IV, qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), the greatness of a virtue, as to its species, is taken from its object. Now, since the three theological virtues look at God as their proper object, it cannot be said that any one of them is greater than another by reason of its having a greater object, but only from the fact that it approaches nearer than another to that object; and in this way charity is greater than the others. Because the others, in their very nature, imply a certain distance from the object: since faith is of what is not seen, and hope is of what is not possessed. But the love of charity is of that which is already possessed: since the beloved is, in a manner, in the lover, and, again, the lover is drawn by desire to union with the beloved; hence it is written (1 John 4:16): "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him."
q. 66 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non hoc modo se habent fides et spes ad caritatem, sicut prudentia ad virtutem moralem. Et hoc propter duo. Primo quidem, quia virtutes theologicae habent obiectum quod est supra animam humanam, sed prudentia et virtutes morales sunt circa ea quae sunt infra hominem. In his autem quae sunt supra hominem, nobilior est dilectio quam cognitio. Perficitur enim cognitio, secundum quod cognita sunt in cognoscente, dilectio vero, secundum quod diligens trahitur ad rem dilectam. Id autem quod est supra hominem, nobilius est in seipso quam sit in homine, quia unumquodque est in altero per modum eius in quo est. E converso autem est in his quae sunt infra hominem. Secundo, quia prudentia moderatur motus appetitivos ad morales virtutes pertinentes, sed fides non moderatur motum appetitivum tendentem in Deum, qui pertinet ad virtutes theologicas; sed solum ostendit obiectum. Motus autem appetitivus in obiectum, excedit cognitionem humanam; secundum illud ad Ephes. III, supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi. Reply to Objection 1. Faith and hope are not related to charity in the same way as prudence to moral virtue; and for two reasons. First, because the theological virtues have an object surpassing the human soul: whereas prudence and the moral virtues are about things beneath man. Now in things that are above man, to love them is more excellent than to know them. Because knowledge is perfected by the known being in the knower: whereas love is perfected by the lover being drawn to the beloved. Now that which is above man is more excellent in itself than in man: since a thing is contained according to the mode of the container. But it is the other way about in things beneath man. Secondly, because prudence moderates the appetitive movements pertaining to the moral virtues, whereas faith does not moderate the appetitive movement tending to God, which movement belongs to the theological virtues: it only shows the object. And this appetitive movement towards its object surpasses human knowledge, according to Ephesians 3:19: "The charity of Christ which surpasseth all knowledge."
q. 66 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod spes praesupponit amorem eius quod quis adipisci se sperat, qui est amor concupiscentiae, quo quidem amore magis se amat qui concupiscit bonum, quam aliquid aliud. Caritas autem importat amorem amicitiae, ad quam pervenitur spe, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. Hope presupposes love of that which a man hopes to obtain; and such love is love of concupiscence, whereby he who desires good, loves himself rather than something else. On the other hand, charity implies love of friendship, to which we are led by hope, as stated above (Question 62, Article 4).
q. 66 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod causa perficiens est potior effectu, non autem causa disponens. Sic enim calor ignis esset potior quam anima, ad quam disponit materiam, quod patet esse falsum. Sic autem fides generat spem, et spes caritatem, secundum scilicet quod una disponit ad alteram. Reply to Objection 3. An efficient cause is more noble than its effect: but not a disposing cause. For otherwise the heat of fire would be more noble than the soul, to which the heat disposes the matter. It is in this way that faith begets hope, and hope charity: in the sense, to wit, that one is a disposition to the other.
q. 67 pr. Deinde considerandum est de duratione virtutum post hanc vitam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum virtutes morales maneant post hanc vitam. Secundo, utrum virtutes intellectuales. Tertio, utrum fides. Quarto, utrum remaneat spes. Quinto, utrum aliquid fidei maneat, vel spei. Sexto, utrum maneat caritas. Question 67. The duration of virtues after this life Do the moral virtues remain after this life? Do the intellectual virtues remain? Does faith remain? Does hope remain? Does anything remain of faith or hope? Does charity remain?
q. 67 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales non maneant post hanc vitam. Homines enim in statu futurae gloriae erunt similes Angelis, ut dicitur Matth. XXII. Sed ridiculum est in Angelis ponere virtutes morales, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Ergo neque in hominibus, post hanc vitam, erunt virtutes morales. Objection 1. It would seem that the moral virtues doe not remain after this life. For in the future state of glory men will be like angels, according to Matthew 22:30. But it is absurd to put moral virtues in the angels ["Whatever relates to moral action is petty, and unworthy of the gods" (Ethic. x, 8)], as stated in Ethic. x, 8. Therefore neither in man will there be moral virtues after this life.
q. 67 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutes morales perficiunt hominem in vita activa. Sed vita activa non manet post hanc vitam, dicit enim Gregorius, in VI Moral., activae vitae opera cum corpore transeunt. Ergo virtutes morales non manent post hanc vitam. Objection 2. Further, moral virtues perfect man in the active life. But the active life does not remain after this life: for Gregory says (Moral. iv, 18): "The works of the active life pass away from the body." Therefore moral virtues do not remain after this life.
q. 67 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, temperantia et fortitudo, quae sunt virtutes morales, sunt irrationalium partium, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic. Sed irrationales partes animae corrumpuntur, corrupto corpore, eo quod sunt actus organorum corporalium. Ergo videtur quod virtutes morales non maneant post hanc vitam. Objection 3. Further, temperance and fortitude, which are moral virtues, are in the irrational parts of the soul, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 10). Now the irrational parts of the soul are corrupted, when the body is corrupted: since they are acts of bodily organs. Therefore it seems that the moral virtues do not remain after this life.
q. 67 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. I, quod iustitia perpetua est et immortalis. On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 1:15) that "justice is perpetual and immortal."
q. 67 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Trin., Tullius posuit post hanc vitam quatuor virtutes cardinales non esse; sed in alia vita homines esse beatos sola cognitione naturae, in qua nihil est melius aut amabilius, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem, ea natura quae creavit omnes naturas. Ipse autem postea determinat huiusmodi quatuor virtutes in futura vita existere, tamen alio modo. Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod in huiusmodi virtutibus aliquid est formale; et aliquid quasi materiale. Materiale quidem est in his virtutibus inclinatio quaedam partis appetitivae ad passiones vel operationes secundum modum aliquem. Sed quia iste modus determinatur a ratione, ideo formale in omnibus virtutibus est ipse ordo rationis. Sic igitur dicendum est quod huiusmodi virtutes morales in futura vita non manent, quantum ad id quod est materiale in eis. Non enim habebunt in futura vita locum concupiscentiae et delectationes ciborum et venereorum; neque etiam timores et audaciae circa pericula mortis; neque etiam distributiones et communicationes rerum quae veniunt in usum praesentis vitae. Sed quantum ad id quod est formale, remanebunt in beatis perfectissimae post hanc vitam, inquantum ratio uniuscuiusque rectissima erit circa ea quae ad ipsum pertinent secundum statum illum; et vis appetitiva omnino movebitur secundum ordinem rationis, in his quae ad statum illum pertinent. Unde Augustinus ibidem dicit quod prudentia ibi erit sine ullo periculo erroris; fortitudo, sine molestia tolerandorum malorum; temperantia, sine repugnatione libidinum. Ut prudentiae sit nullum bonum Deo praeponere vel aequare; fortitudinis, ei firmissime cohaerere; temperantiae, nullo defectu noxio delectari. De iustitia vero manifestius est quem actum ibi habebit, scilicet esse subditum Deo, quia etiam in hac vita ad iustitiam pertinet esse subditum superiori. I answer that, As Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9), Cicero held that the cardinal virtues do not remain after this life; and that, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9), "in the other life men are made happy by the mere knowledge of that nature, than which nothing is better or more lovable, that Nature, to wit, which created all others." Afterwards he concludes that these four virtues remain in the future life, but after a different manner. In order to make this evident, we must note that in these virtues there is a formal element, and a quasi-material element. The material element in these virtues is a certain inclination of the appetitive part to the passions and operations according to a certain mode: and since this mode is fixed by reason, the formal element is precisely this order of reason. Accordingly we must say that these moral virtues do not remain in the future life, as regards their material element. For in the future life there will be no concupiscences and pleasures in matters of food and sex; nor fear and daring about dangers of death; nor distributions and commutations of things employed in this present life. But, as regards the formal element, they will remain most perfect, after this life, in the Blessed, in as much as each one's reason will have most perfect rectitude in regard to things concerning him in respect of that state of life: and his appetitive power will be moved entirely according to the order of reason, in things pertaining to that same state. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9) that "prudence will be there without any danger of error; fortitude, without the anxiety of bearing with evil; temperance, without the rebellion of the desires: so that prudence will neither prefer nor equal any good to God; fortitude will adhere to Him most steadfastly; and temperance will delight in Him Who knows no imperfection." As to justice, it is yet more evident what will be its act in that life, viz. "to be subject to God": because even in this life subjection to a superior is part of justice.
q. 67 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur ibi de huiusmodi virtutibus moralibus, quantum ad id quod materiale est in eis, sicut de iustitia, quantum ad commutationes et depositiones; de fortitudine, quantum ad terribilia et pericula; de temperantia, quantum ad concupiscentias pravas. Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher is speaking there of these moral virtues, as to their material element; thus he speaks of justice, as regards "commutations and distributions"; of fortitude, as to "matters of terror and danger"; of temperance, in respect of "lewd desires."
q. 67 a. 1 ad 2 Et similiter dicendum est ad secundum. Ea enim quae sunt activae vitae, materialiter se habent ad virtutes. The same applies to the Second Objection. For those things that concern the active life, belong to the material element of the virtues.
q. 67 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod status post hanc vitam est duplex, unus quidem ante resurrectionem, quando animae erunt a corporibus separatae; alius autem post resurrectionem, quando animae iterato corporibus suis unientur. In illo ergo resurrectionis statu, erunt vires irrationales in organis corporis, sicut et nunc sunt. Unde et poterit in irascibili esse fortitudo, et in concupiscibili temperantia, inquantum utraque vis perfecte erit disposita ad obediendum rationi. Sed in statu ante resurrectionem, partes irrationales non erunt actu in anima, sed solum radicaliter in essentia ipsius, ut in primo dictum est. Unde nec huiusmodi virtutes erunt in actu nisi in radice, scilicet in ratione et voluntate, in quibus sunt seminalia quaedam harum virtutum, ut dictum est. Sed iustitia, quae est in voluntate, etiam actu remanebit. Unde specialiter de ea dictum est quod est perpetua et immortalis, tum ratione subiecti, quia voluntas incorruptibilis est; tum etiam propter similitudinem actus, ut prius dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. There is a twofold state after this life; one before the resurrection, during which the soul will be separate from the body; the other, after the resurrection, when the souls will be reunited to their bodies. In this state of resurrection, the irrational powers will be in the bodily organs, just as they now are. Hence it will be possible for fortitude to be in the irascible, and temperance in the concupiscible part, in so far as each power will be perfectly disposed to obey the reason. But in the state preceding the resurrection, the irrational parts will not be in the soul actually, but only radically in its essence, as stated in the I, 77, 8. Wherefore neither will these virtues be actually, but only in their root, i.e. in the reason and will, wherein are certain nurseries of these virtues, as stated above (Question 63, Article 1). Justice, however, will remain because it is in the will. Hence of justice it is specially said that it is "perpetual and immortal"; both by reason of its subject, since the will is incorruptible; and because its act will not change, as stated.
q. 67 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes intellectuales non maneant post hanc vitam. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XIII, quod scientia destruetur, et ratio est quia ex parte cognoscimus. Sed sicut cognitio scientiae est ex parte, idest imperfecta; ita etiam cognitio aliarum virtutum intellectualium, quandiu haec vita durat. Ergo omnes virtutes intellectuales post hanc vitam cessabunt. Objection 1. It would seem that the intellectual virtues do not remain after this life. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:8-9) that "knowledge shall be destroyed," and he states the reason to be because "we know in part." Now just as the knowledge of science is in part, i.e. imperfect; so also is the knowledge of the other intellectual virtues, as long as this life lasts. Therefore all the intellectual virtues will cease after this life.
q. 67 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in praedicamentis, quod scientia, cum sit habitus, est qualitas difficile mobilis, non enim de facili amittitur, nisi ex aliqua forti transmutatione vel aegritudine. Sed nulla est tanta transmutatio corporis humani sicut per mortem. Ergo scientia et aliae virtutes intellectuales non manent post hanc vitam. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Categor. vi) that since science is a habit, it is a quality difficult to remove: for it is not easily lost, except by reason of some great change or sickness. But no bodily change is so great as that of death. Therefore science and the other intellectual virtues do not remain after death.
q. 67 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtutes intellectuales perficiunt intellectum ad bene operandum proprium actum. Sed actus intellectus non videtur esse post hanc vitam, eo quod nihil intelligit anima sine phantasmate, ut dicitur in III de anima; phantasmata autem post hanc vitam non manent, cum non sint nisi in organis corporeis. Ergo virtutes intellectuales non manent post hanc vitam. Objection 3. Further, the intellectual virtues perfect the intellect so that it may perform its proper act well. Now there seems to be no act of the intellect after this life, since "the soul understands nothing without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, text. 30); and, after this life, the phantasms do not remain, since their only subject is an organ of the body. Therefore the intellectual virtues do not remain after this life.
q. 67 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod firmior est cognitio universalium et necessariorum, quam particularium et contingentium. Sed in homine remanet post hanc vitam cognitio particularium contingentium, puta eorum quae quis fecit vel passus est; secundum illud Luc. XVI, recordare quia recepisti bona in vita tua, et Lazarus similiter mala. Ergo multo magis remanet cognitio universalium et necessariorum, quae pertinent ad scientiam et ad alias virtutes intellectuales. On the contrary, The knowledge of what is universal and necessary is more constant than that of particular and contingent things. Now the knowledge of contingent particulars remains in man after this life; for instance, the knowledge of what one has done or suffered, according to Luke 16:25: "Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy life-time, and likewise Lazarus evil things." Much more, therefore, does the knowledge of universal and necessary things remain, which belong to science and the other intellectual virtues.
q. 67 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, quidam posuerunt quod species intelligibiles non permanent in intellectu possibili nisi quandiu actu intelligit, nec est aliqua conservatio specierum, cessante consideratione actuali, nisi in viribus sensitivis, quae sunt actus corporalium organorum, scilicet in imaginativa et memorativa. Huiusmodi autem vires corrumpuntur, corrupto corpore. Et ideo secundum hoc, scientia nullo modo post hanc vitam remanebit, corpore corrupto; neque aliqua alia intellectualis virtus. Sed haec opinio est contra sententiam Aristotelis, qui in III de anima dicit quod intellectus possibilis est in actu, cum fit singula, sicut sciens; cum tamen sit in potentia ad considerandum in actu. Est etiam contra rationem, quia species intelligibiles recipiuntur in intellectu possibili immobiliter, secundum modum recipientis. Unde et intellectus possibilis dicitur locus specierum, quasi species intelligibiles conservans. Sed phantasmata, ad quae respiciendo homo intelligit in hac vita, applicando ad ipsa species intelligibiles, ut in primo dictum est, corrupto corpore corrumpuntur. Unde quantum ad ipsa phantasmata, quae sunt quasi materialia in virtutibus intellectualibus, virtutes intellectuales destruuntur, destructo corpore, sed quantum ad species intelligibiles, quae sunt in intellectu possibili, virtutes intellectuales manent. Species autem se habent in virtutibus intellectualibus sicut formales. Unde intellectuales virtutes manent post hanc vitam, quantum ad id quod est formale in eis, non autem quantum ad id quod est materiale, sicut et de moralibus dictum est. I answer that, As stated in the I, 79, 6 some have held that the intelligible species do not remain in the passive intellect except when it actually understands; and that so long as actual consideration ceases, the species are not preserved save in the sensitive powers which are acts of bodily organs, viz. in the powers of imagination and memory. Now these powers cease when the body is corrupted: and consequently, according to this opinion, neither science nor any other intellectual virtue will remain after this life when once the body is corrupted. But this opinion is contrary to the mind of Aristotle, who states (De Anima iii, text. 8) that "the possible intellect is in act when it is identified with each thing as knowing it; and yet, even then, it is in potentiality to consider it actually." It is also contrary to reason, because intelligible species are contained by the "possible" intellect immovably, according to the mode of their container. Hence the "possible" intellect is called "the abode of the species" (De Anima iii) because it preserves the intelligible species. And yet the phantasms, by turning to which man understands in this life, by applying the intelligible species to them as stated in the I, 84, 7; I, 85, 1, ad 5, cease as soon as the body is corrupted. Hence, so far as the phantasms are concerned, which are the quasi-material element in the intellectual virtues, these latter cease when the body is destroyed: but as regards the intelligible species, which are in the "possible" intellect, the intellectual virtues remain. Now the species are the quasi-formal element of the intellectual virtues. Therefore these remain after this life, as regards their formal element, just as we have stated concerning the moral virtues (1).
q. 67 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum apostoli est intelligendum quantum ad id quod est materiale in scientia, et quantum ad modum intelligendi, quia scilicet neque phantasmata remanebunt, destructo corpore; neque erit usus scientiae per conversionem ad phantasmata. Reply to Objection 1. The saying of the Apostle is to be understood as referring to the material element in science, and to the mode of understanding; because, to it, neither do the phantasms remain, when the body is destroyed; nor will science be applied by turning to the phantasms.
q. 67 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod per aegritudinem corrumpitur habitus scientiae quantum ad id quod est materiale in eo, scilicet quantum ad phantasmata, non autem quantum ad species intelligibiles, quae sunt in intellectu possibili. Reply to Objection 2. Sickness destroys the habit of science as to its material element, viz. the phantasms, but not as to the intelligible species, which are in the "possible" intellect.
q. 67 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod anima separata post mortem habet alium modum intelligendi quam per conversionem ad phantasmata, ut in primo dictum est. Et sic scientia manet, non tamen secundum eundem modum operandi, sicut et de virtutibus moralibus dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the I, 89, 1 the separated soul has a mode of understanding, other than by turning to the phantasms. Consequently science remains, yet not as to the same mode of operation; as we have stated concerning the moral virtues (1).
q. 67 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides maneat post hanc vitam. Nobilior enim est fides quam scientia. Sed scientia manet post hanc vitam, ut dictum est. Ergo et fides. Objection 1. It would seem that faith remains after this life. Because faith is more excellent than science. Now science remains after this life, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore faith remains also.
q. 67 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, I ad Cor. III, dicitur, fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus, idest fides Christi Iesu. Sed sublato fundamento, non remanet id quod superaedificatur. Ergo, si fides non remanet post hanc vitam, nulla alia virtus remaneret. Objection 2. Further, it is written (1 Corinthians 3:11): "Other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus," i.e. faith in Jesus Christ. Now if the foundation is removed, that which is built upon it remains no more. Therefore, if faith remains not after this life, no other virtue remains.
q. 67 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, cognitio fidei et cognitio gloriae differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum. Sed cognitio imperfecta potest esse simul cum cognitione perfecta, sicut in Angelo simul potest esse cognitio vespertina cum cognitione matutina; et aliquis homo potest simul habere de eadem conclusione scientiam per syllogismum demonstrativum, et opinionem per syllogismum dialecticum. Ergo etiam fides simul esse potest, post hanc vitam, cum cognitione gloriae. Objection 3. Further, the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of glory differ as perfect from imperfect. Now imperfect knowledge is compatible with perfect knowledge: thus in an angel there can be "evening" and "morning" knowledge [Cf. I, 58, 6]; and a man can have science through a demonstrative syllogism, together with opinion through a probable syllogism, about one same conclusion. Therefore after this life faith also is compatible with the knowledge of glory.
q. 67 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. V, quandiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino, per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem. Sed illi qui sunt in gloria, non peregrinantur a domino, sed sunt ei praesentes. Ergo fides non manet post hanc vitam in gloria. On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Corinthians 5:6-7): "While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith and not by sight." But those who are in glory are not absent from the Lord, but present to Him. Therefore after this life faith does not remain in the life of glory.
q. 67 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod oppositio est per se et propria causa quod unum excludatur ab alio, inquantum scilicet in omnibus oppositis includitur oppositio affirmationis et negationis. Invenitur autem in quibusdam oppositio secundum contrarias formas, sicut in coloribus album et nigrum. In quibusdam autem, secundum perfectum et imperfectum, unde in alterationibus magis et minus accipiuntur ut contraria, ut cum de minus calido fit magis calidum, ut dicitur in V Physic. Et quia perfectum et imperfectum opponuntur, impossibile est quod simul, secundum idem, sit perfectio et imperfectio. Est autem considerandum quod imperfectio quidem quandoque est de ratione rei, et pertinet ad speciem ipsius, sicut defectus rationis pertinet ad rationem speciei equi vel bovis. Et quia unum et idem numero manens non potest transferri de una specie in aliam, inde est quod, tali imperfectione sublata, tollitur species rei, sicut iam non esset bos vel equus, si esset rationalis. Quandoque vero imperfectio non pertinet ad rationem speciei, sed accidit individuo secundum aliquid aliud, sicut alicui homini quandoque accidit defectus rationis, inquantum impeditur in eo rationis usus, propter somnum vel ebrietatem vel aliquid huiusmodi. Patet autem quod, tali imperfectione remota, nihilominus substantia rei manet. Manifestum est autem quod imperfectio cognitionis est de ratione fidei. Ponitur enim in eius definitione, fides enim est substantia sperandarum rerum, argumentum non apparentium, ut dicitur ad Heb. XI. Et Augustinus dicit, quid est fides? Credere quod non vides. Quod autem cognitio sit sine apparitione vel visione, hoc ad imperfectionem cognitionis pertinet. Et sic imperfectio cognitionis est de ratione fidei. Unde manifestum est quod fides non potest esse perfecta cognitio, eadem numero manens. Sed ulterius considerandum est utrum simul possit esse cum cognitione perfecta, nihil enim prohibet aliquam cognitionem imperfectam simul esse aliquando cum cognitione perfecta. Est igitur considerandum quod cognitio potest esse imperfecta tripliciter, uno modo, ex parte obiecti cognoscibilis; alio modo, ex parte medii; tertio modo, ex parte subiecti. Ex parte quidem obiecti cognoscibilis, differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum cognitio matutina et vespertina in Angelis, nam cognitio matutina est de rebus secundum quod habent esse in verbo; cognitio autem vespertina est de eis secundum quod habent esse in propria natura, quod est imperfectum respectu primi esse. Ex parte vero medii, differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum cognitio quae est de aliqua conclusione per medium demonstrativum, et per medium probabile. Ex parte vero subiecti differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum opinio, fides et scientia. Nam de ratione opinionis est quod accipiatur unum cum formidine alterius oppositi, unde non habet firmam inhaesionem. De ratione vero scientiae est quod habeat firmam inhaesionem cum visione intellectiva, habet enim certitudinem procedentem ex intellectu principiorum. Fides autem medio modo se habet, excedit enim opinionem, in hoc quod habet firmam inhaesionem; deficit vero a scientia, in hoc quod non habet visionem. Manifestum est autem quod perfectum et imperfectum non possunt simul esse secundum idem, sed ea quae differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum, secundum aliquid idem possunt simul esse in aliquo alio eodem. Sic igitur cognitio perfecta et imperfecta ex parte obiecti, nullo modo possunt esse de eodem obiecto. Possunt tamen convenire in eodem medio, et in eodem subiecto, nihil enim prohibet quod unus homo simul et semel per unum et idem medium habeat cognitionem de duobus, quorum unum est perfectum et aliud imperfectum, sicut de sanitate et aegritudine, et bono et malo. Similiter etiam impossibile est quod cognitio perfecta et imperfecta ex parte medii, conveniant in uno medio. Sed nihil prohibet quin conveniant in uno obiecto, et in uno subiecto, potest enim unus homo cognoscere eandem conclusionem per medium probabile, et demonstrativum. Et est similiter impossibile quod cognitio perfecta et imperfecta ex parte subiecti, sint simul in eodem subiecto. Fides autem in sui ratione habet imperfectionem quae est ex parte subiecti, ut scilicet credens non videat id quod credit, beatitudo autem de sui ratione habet perfectionem ex parte subiecti, ut scilicet beatus videat id quo beatificatur, ut supra dictum est. Unde manifestum est quod impossibile est quod fides maneat simul cum beatitudine in eodem subiecto. I answer that, Opposition is of itself the proper cause of one thing being excluded from another, in so far, to wit, as wherever two things are opposite to one another, we find opposition of affirmation and negation. Now in some things we find opposition in respect of contrary forms; thus in colors we find white and black. In others we find opposition in respect of perfection and imperfection: wherefore in alterations, more and less are considered to be contraries, as when a thing from being less hot is made more hot (Phys. v, text. 19). And since perfect and imperfect are opposite to one another, it is impossible for perfection and imperfection to affect the same thing at the same time. Now we must take note that sometimes imperfection belongs to a thing's very nature, and belongs to its species: even as lack of reason belongs to the very specific nature of a horse and an ox. And since a thing, so long as it remains the same identically, cannot pass from one species to another, it follows that if such an imperfection be removed, the species of that thing is changed: even as it would no longer be an ox or a horse, were it to be rational. Sometimes, however, the imperfection does not belong to the specific nature, but is accidental to the individual by reason of something else; even as sometimes lack of reason is accidental to a man, because he is asleep, or because he is drunk, or for some like reason; and it is evident, that if such an imperfection be removed, the thing remains substantially. Now it is clear that imperfect knowledge belongs to the very nature of faith: for it is included in its definition; faith being defined as "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1). Wherefore Augustine says (Tract. xl in Joan.): "Where is faith? Believing without seeing." But it is an imperfect knowledge that is of things unapparent or unseen. Consequently imperfect knowledge belongs to the very nature of faith: therefore it is clear that the knowledge of faith cannot be perfect and remain identically the same. But we must also consider whether it is compatible with perfect knowledge: for there is nothing to prevent some kind of imperfect knowledge from being sometimes with perfect knowledge. Accordingly we must observe that knowledge can be imperfect in three ways: first, on the part of the knowable object; secondly, on the part of the medium; thirdly, on the part of the subject. The difference of perfect and imperfect knowledge on the part of the knowable object is seen in the "morning" and "evening" knowledge of the angels: for the "morning" knowledge is about things according to the being which they have in the Word, while the "evening" knowledge is about things according as they have being in their own natures, which being is imperfect in comparison with the First Being. On the part of the medium, perfect and imperfect knowledge are exemplified in the knowledge of a conclusion through a demonstrative medium, and through a probable medium. On the part of the subject the difference of perfect and imperfect knowledge applies to opinion, faith, and science. For it is essential to opinion that we assent to one of two opposite assertions with fear of the other, so that our adhesion is not firm: to science it is essential to have firm adhesion with intellectual vision, for science possesses certitude which results from the understanding of principles: while faith holds a middle place, for it surpasses opinion in so far as its adhesion is firm, but falls short of science in so far as it lacks vision. Now it is evident that a thing cannot be perfect and imperfect in the same respect; yet the things which differ as perfect and imperfect can be together in the same respect in one and the same other thing. Accordingly, knowledge which is perfect on the part of the object is quite incompatible with imperfect knowledge about the same object; but they are compatible with one another in respect of the same medium or the same subject: for nothing hinders a man from having at one and the same time, through one and the same medium, perfect and imperfect knowledge about two things, one perfect, the other imperfect, e.g. about health and sickness, good and evil. In like manner knowledge that is perfect on the part of the medium is incompatible with imperfect knowledge through one and the same medium: but nothing hinders them being about the same subject or in the same subject: for one man can know the same conclusions through a probable and through a demonstrative medium. Again, knowledge that is perfect on the part of the subject is incompatible with imperfect knowledge in the same subject. Now faith, of its very nature, contains an imperfection on the part of the subject, viz. that the believer sees not what he believes: whereas bliss, of its very nature, implies perfection on the part of the subject, viz. that the Blessed see that which makes them happy, as stated above (Question 3, Article 8). Hence it is manifest that faith and bliss are incompatible in one and the same subject.
q. 67 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fides est nobilior quam scientia, ex parte obiecti, quia eius obiectum est veritas prima. Sed scientia habet perfectiorem modum cognoscendi, qui non repugnat perfectioni beatitudinis, scilicet visioni, sicut repugnat ei modus fidei. Reply to Objection 1. Faith is more excellent than science, on the part of the object, because its object is the First Truth. Yet science has a more perfect mode of knowing its object, which is not incompatible with vision which is the perfection of happiness, as the mode of faith is incompatible.
q. 67 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod fides est fundamentum quantum ad id quod habet de cognitione. Et ideo quando perficietur cognitio, erit perfectius fundamentum. Reply to Objection 2. Faith is the foundation in as much as it is knowledge: consequently when this knowledge is perfected, the foundation will be perfected also.
q. 67 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium patet solutio ex his quae dicta sunt. The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said.
q. 67 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes maneat post mortem in statu gloriae. Spes enim nobiliori modo perficit appetitum humanum quam virtutes morales. Sed virtutes morales manent post hanc vitam, ut patet per Augustinum, in XIV de Trin. Ergo multo magis spes. Objection 1. It would seem that hope remains after death, in the state of glory. Because hope perfects the human appetite in a more excellent manner than the moral virtues. But the moral virtues remain after this life, as Augustine clearly states (De Trin. xiv, 9). Much more then does hope remain.
q. 67 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, spei opponitur timor. Sed timor manet post hanc vitam, et in beatis quidem timor filialis, qui manet in saeculum; et in damnatis timor poenarum. Ergo spes, pari ratione, potest permanere. Objection 2. Further, fear is opposed to hope. But fear remains after this life: in the Blessed, filial fear, which abides for ever--in the lost, the fear of punishment. Therefore, in a like manner, hope can remain.
q. 67 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut spes est futuri boni, ita et desiderium. Sed in beatis est desiderium futuri boni, et quantum ad gloriam corporis, quam animae beatorum desiderant, ut dicit Augustinus, XII super Gen. ad Litt.; et etiam quantum ad gloriam animae, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, qui edunt me, adhuc esurient, et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient; et I Petr. I, dicitur, in quem desiderant Angeli prospicere. Ergo videtur quod possit esse spes post hanc vitam in beatis. Objection 3. Further, just as hope is of future good, so is desire. Now in the Blessed there is desire for future good; both for the glory of the body, which the souls of the Blessed desire, as Augustine declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35); and for the glory of the soul, according to Sirach 24:29: "They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that drink me, shall yet thirst," and 1 Peter 1:12: "On Whom the angels desire to look." Therefore it seems that there can be hope in the Blessed after this life is past.
q. 67 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VIII, quod videt quis, quid sperat? Sed beati vident id quod est obiectum spei, scilicet Deum. Ergo non sperant. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): "What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" But the Blessed see that which is the object of hope, viz. God. Therefore they do not hope.
q. 67 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, id quod de ratione sui importat imperfectionem subiecti, non potest simul stare cum subiecto opposita perfectione perfecto. Sicut patet quod motus in ratione sui importat imperfectionem subiecti, est enim actus existentis in potentia, inquantum huiusmodi, unde quando illa potentia reducitur ad actum, iam cessat motus; non enim adhuc albatur, postquam iam aliquid factum est album. Spes autem importat motum quendam in id quod non habetur; ut patet ex his quae supra de passione spei diximus. Et ideo quando habebitur id quod speratur, scilicet divina fruitio, iam spes esse non poterit. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), that which, in its very nature, implies imperfection of its subject, is incompatible with the opposite perfection in that subject. Thus it is evident that movement of its very nature implies imperfection of its subject, since it is "the act of that which is in potentiality as such" (Phys. iii): so that as soon as this potentiality is brought into act, the movement ceases; for a thing does not continue to become white, when once it is made white. Now hope denotes a movement towards that which is not possessed, as is clear from what we have said above about the passion of hope (40, A1,2). Therefore when we possess that which we hope for, viz. the enjoyment of God, it will no longer be possible to have hope.
q. 67 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod spes est nobilior virtutibus moralibus quantum ad obiectum, quod est Deus. Sed actus virtutum moralium non repugnant perfectioni beatitudinis, sicut actus spei; nisi forte ratione materiae, secundum quam non manent. Non enim virtus moralis perficit appetitum solum in id quod nondum habetur; sed etiam circa id quod praesentialiter habetur. Reply to Objection 1. Hope surpasses the moral virtues as to its object, which is God. But the acts of the moral virtues are not incompatible with the perfection of happiness, as the act of hope is; except perhaps, as regards their matter, in respect of which they do not remain. For moral virtue perfects the appetite, not only in respect of what is not yet possessed, but also as regards something which is in our actual possession.
q. 67 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor est duplex, servilis et filialis, ut infra dicetur. Servilis quidem est timor poenae, qui non poterit esse in gloria, nulla possibilitate ad poenam remanente. Timor vero filialis habet duos actus, scilicet revereri Deum, et quantum ad hunc actum manet; et timere separationem ab ipso, et quantum ad hunc actum non manet. Separari enim a Deo habet rationem mali, nullum autem malum ibi timebitur, secundum illud Proverb. I, abundantia perfruetur, malorum timore sublato. Timor autem opponitur spei oppositione boni et mali, ut supra dictum est, et ideo timor qui remanet in gloria, non opponitur spei. In damnatis autem magis potest esse timor poenae, quam in beatis spes gloriae. Quia in damnatis erit successio poenarum, et sic remanet ibi ratio futuri, quod est obiectum timoris, sed gloria sanctorum est absque successione, secundum quandam aeternitatis participationem, in qua non est praeteritum et futurum, sed solum praesens. Et tamen nec etiam in damnatis est proprie timor. Nam sicut supra dictum est, timor nunquam est sine aliqua spe evasionis, quae omnino in damnatis non erit. Unde nec timor; nisi communiter loquendo, secundum quod quaelibet expectatio mali futuri dicitur timor. Reply to Objection 2. Fear is twofold, servile and filial, as we shall state further on (II-II, 19, 2). Servile fear regards punishment, and will be impossible in the life of glory, since there will no longer be possibility of being punished. Filial fear has two acts: one is an act of reverence to God, and with regard to this act, it remains: the other is an act of fear lest we be separated from God, and as regards this act, it does not remain. Because separation from God is in the nature of an evil: and no evil will be feared there, according to Proverbs 1:33: "He . . . shall enjoy abundance without fear of evils." Now fear is opposed to hope by opposition of good and evil, as stated above (23, 2; 40, 1), and therefore the fear which will remain in glory is not opposed to hope. In the lost there can be fear of punishment, rather than hope of glory in the Blessed. Because in the lost there will be a succession of punishments, so that the notion of something future remains there, which is the object of fear: but the glory of the saints has no succession, by reason of its being a kind of participation of eternity, wherein there is neither past nor future, but only the present. And yet, properly speaking, neither in the lost is there fear. For, as stated above (Question 42, Article 2), fear is never without some hope of escape: and the lost have no such hope. Consequently neither will there be fear in them; except speaking in a general way, in so far as any expectation of future evil is called fear.
q. 67 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quantum ad gloriam animae, non potest esse in beatis desiderium, secundum quod respicit futurum, ratione iam dicta. Dicitur autem ibi esse esuries et sitis, per remotionem fastidii, et eadem ratione dicitur esse desiderium in Angelis. Respectu autem gloriae corporis, in animabus sanctorum potest quidem esse desiderium, non tamen spes, proprie loquendo, neque secundum quod spes est virtus theologica, sic enim eius obiectum est Deus, non autem aliquod bonum creatum; neque secundum quod communiter sumitur. Quia obiectum spei est arduum, ut supra dictum est, bonum autem cuius iam inevitabilem causam habemus, non comparatur ad nos in ratione ardui. Unde non proprie dicitur aliquis qui habet argentum, sperare se habiturum aliquid quod statim in potestate eius est ut emat. Et similiter illi qui habent gloriam animae, non proprie dicuntur sperare gloriam corporis; sed solum desiderare. Reply to Objection 3. As to the glory of the soul, there can be no desire in the Blessed, in so far as desire looks for something future, for the reason already given (ad 2). Yet hunger and thirst are said to be in them because they never weary, and for the same reason desire is said to be in the angels. With regard to the glory of the body, there can be desire in the souls of the saints, but not hope, properly speaking; neither as a theological virtue, for thus its object is God, and not a created good; nor in its general signification. Because the object of hope is something difficult, as stated above (Question 40, Article 1): while a good whose unerring cause we already possess, is not compared to us as something difficult. Hence he that has money is not, properly speaking, said to hope for what he can buy at once. In like manner those who have the glory of the soul are not, properly speaking, said to hope for the glory of the body, but only to desire it.
q. 67 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquid fidei vel spei remaneat in gloria. Remoto enim eo quod est proprium, remanet id quod est commune, sicut dicitur in libro de causis, quod, remoto rationali, remanet vivum; et remoto vivo, remanet ens. Sed in fide est aliquid quod habet commune cum beatitudine, scilicet ipsa cognitio, aliquid autem quod est sibi proprium, scilicet aenigma; est enim fides cognitio aenigmatica. Ergo, remoto aenigmate fidei, adhuc remanet ipsa cognitio fidei. Objection 1. It would seem that something of faith and hope remains in glory. For when that which is proper to a thing is removed, there remains what is common; thus it is stated in De Causis that "if you take away rational, there remains living, and when you remove living, there remains being." Now in faith there is something that it has in common with beatitude, viz. knowledge: and there is something proper to it, viz. darkness, for faith is knowledge in a dark manner. Therefore, the darkness of faith removed, the knowledge of faith still remains.
q. 67 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, fides est quoddam spirituale lumen animae, secundum illud Ephes. I, illuminatos oculos cordis vestri in agnitionem Dei; sed hoc lumen est imperfectum respectu luminis gloriae, de quo dicitur in Psalmo XXXV, in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Lumen autem imperfectum remanet, superveniente lumine perfecto, non enim candela extinguitur, claritate solis superveniente. Ergo videtur quod ipsum lumen fidei maneat cum lumine gloriae. Objection 2. Further, faith is a spiritual light of the soul, according to Ephesians 1:17-18: "The eyes of your heart enlightened . . . in the knowledge of God"; yet this light is imperfect in comparison with the light of glory, of which it is written (Psalm 35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light." Now an imperfect light remains when a perfect light supervenes: for a candle is not extinguished when the sun's rays appear. Therefore it seems that the light of faith itself remains with the light of glory.
q. 67 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, substantia habitus non tollitur per hoc quod subtrahitur materia, potest enim homo habitum liberalitatis retinere, etiam amissa pecunia; sed actum habere non potest. Obiectum autem fidei est veritas prima non visa. Ergo, hoc remoto per hoc quod videtur veritas prima, adhuc potest remanere ipse habitus fidei. Objection 3. Further, the substance of a habit does not cease through the withdrawal of its matter: for a man may retain the habit of liberality, though he have lost his money: yet he cannot exercise the act. Now the object of faith is the First Truth as unseen. Therefore when this ceases through being seen, the habit of faith can still remain.
q. 67 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod fides est quidam habitus simplex. Simplex autem vel totum tollitur, vel totum manet. Cum igitur fides non totaliter maneat, sed evacuetur, ut dictum est; videtur quod totaliter tollatur. On the contrary, Faith is a simple habit. Now a simple thing is either withdrawn entirely, or remains entirely. Since therefore faith does not remain entirely, but is taken away as stated above (Article 3), it seems that it is withdrawn entirely.
q. 67 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod spes totaliter tollitur, fides autem partim tollitur, scilicet quantum ad aenigma, et partim manet, scilicet quantum ad substantiam cognitionis. Quod quidem si sic intelligatur quod maneat non idem numero, sed idem genere, verissime dictum est, fides enim cum visione patriae convenit in genere, quod est cognitio. Spes autem non convenit cum beatitudine in genere, comparatur enim spes ad beatitudinis fruitionem, sicut motus ad quietem in termino. Si autem intelligatur quod eadem numero cognitio quae est fidei, maneat in patria; hoc est omnino impossibile. Non enim, remota differentia alicuius speciei, remanet substantia generis eadem numero, sicut, remota differentia constitutiva albedinis, non remanet eadem substantia coloris numero, ut sic idem numero color sit quandoque albedo, quandoque vero nigredo. Non enim comparatur genus ad differentiam sicut materia ad formam, ut remaneat substantia generis eadem numero, differentia remota; sicut remanet eadem numero substantia materiae, remota forma. Genus enim et differentia non sunt partes speciei, alioquin non praedicarentur de specie. Sed sicut species significat totum, idest compositum ex materia et forma in rebus materialibus, ita differentia significat totum, et similiter genus, sed genus denominat totum ab eo quod est sicut materia; differentia vero ab eo quod est sicut forma; species vero ab utroque. Sicut in homine sensitiva natura materialiter se habet ad intellectivam, animal autem dicitur quod habet naturam sensitivam; rationale quod habet intellectivam; homo vero quod habet utrumque. Et sic idem totum significatur per haec tria, sed non ab eodem. Unde patet quod, cum differentia non sit nisi designativa generis, remota differentia, non potest substantia generis eadem remanere, non enim remanet eadem animalitas, si sit alia anima constituens animal. Unde non potest esse quod eadem numero cognitio, quae prius fuit aenigmatica, postea fiat visio aperta. Et sic patet quod nihil idem numero vel specie quod est in fide, remanet in patria; sed solum idem genere. I answer that, Some have held that hope is taken away entirely: but that faith is taken away in part, viz. as to its obscurity, and remains in part, viz. as to the substance of its knowledge. And if this be understood to mean that it remains the same, not identically but generically, it is absolutely true; since faith is of the same genus, viz. knowledge, as the beatific vision. On the other hand, hope is not of the same genus as heavenly bliss: because it is compared to the enjoyment of bliss, as movement is to rest in the term of movement. But if it be understood to mean that in heaven the knowledge of faith remains identically the same, this is absolutely impossible. Because when you remove a specific difference, the substance of the genus does not remain identically the same: thus if you remove the difference constituting whiteness, the substance of color does not remain identically the same, as though the identical color were at one time whiteness, and, at another, blackness. The reason is that genus is not related to difference as matter to form, so that the substance of the genus remains identically the same, when the difference is removed, as the substance of matter remains identically the same, when the form is changed: for genus and difference are not the parts of a species, else they would not be predicated of the species. But even as the species denotes the whole, i.e. the compound of matter and form in material things, so does the difference, and likewise the genus; the genus denotes the whole by signifying that which is material; the difference, by signifying that which is formal; the species, by signifying both. Thus, in man, the sensitive nature is as matter to the intellectual nature, and animal is predicated of that which has a sensitive nature, rational of that which has an intellectual nature, and man of that which has both. So that the one same whole is denoted by these three, but not under the same aspect. It is therefore evident that, since the signification of the difference is confined to the genus if the difference be removed, the substance of the genus cannot remain the same: for the same animal nature does not remain, if another kind of soul constitute the animal. Hence it is impossible for the identical knowledge, which was previously obscure, to become clear vision. It is therefore evident that, in heaven, nothing remains of faith, either identically or specifically the same, but only generically.
q. 67 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, remoto rationali, non remanet vivum idem numero, sed idem genere, ut ex dictis patet. Reply to Objection 1. If "rational" be withdrawn, the remaining "living" thing is the same, not identically, but generically, as stated.
q. 67 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod imperfectio luminis candelae non opponitur perfectioni solaris luminis, quia non respiciunt idem subiectum. Sed imperfectio fidei et perfectio gloriae opponuntur ad invicem, et respiciunt idem subiectum. Unde non possunt esse simul, sicut nec claritas aeris cum obscuritate eius. Reply to Objection 2. The imperfection of candlelight is not opposed to the perfection of sunlight, since they do not regard the same subject: whereas the imperfection of faith and the perfection of glory are opposed to one another and regard the same subject. Consequently they are incompatible with one another, just as light and darkness in the air.
q. 67 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui amittit pecuniam, non amittit possibilitatem habendi pecuniam, et ideo convenienter remanet habitus liberalitatis. Sed in statu gloriae non solum actu tollitur obiectum fidei, quod est non visum; sed etiam secundum possibilitatem, propter beatitudinis stabilitatem. Et ideo frustra talis habitus remaneret. Reply to Objection 3. He that loses his money does not therefore lose the possibility of having money, and therefore it is reasonable for the habit of liberality to remain. But in the state of glory not only is the object of faith, which is the unseen, removed actually, but even its possibility, by reason of the unchangeableness of heavenly bliss: and so such a habit would remain to no purpose.
q. 67 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non maneat post hanc vitam in gloria. Quia, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est, idest quod est imperfectum. Sed caritas viae est imperfecta. Ergo evacuabitur, adveniente perfectione gloriae. Objection 1. It would seem that charity does not remain after this life, in glory. Because according to 1 Corinthians 13:10, "when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part," i.e. that which is imperfect, "shall be done away." Now the charity of the wayfarer is imperfect. Therefore it will be done away when the perfection of glory is attained.
q. 67 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, habitus et actus distinguuntur secundum obiecta. Sed obiectum amoris est bonum apprehensum. Cum ergo alia sit apprehensio praesentis vitae, et alia apprehensio futurae vitae; videtur quod non maneat eadem caritas utrobique. Objection 2. Further, habits and acts are differentiated by their objects. But the object of love is good apprehended. Since therefore the apprehension of the present life differs from the apprehension of the life to come, it seems that charity is not the same in both cases.
q. 67 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, eorum quae sunt unius rationis, imperfectum potest venire ad aequalitatem perfectionis, per continuum augmentum. Sed caritas viae nunquam potest pervenire ad aequalitatem caritatis patriae, quantumcumque augeatur. Ergo videtur quod caritas viae non remaneat in patria. Objection 3. Further, things of the same kind can advance from imperfection to perfection by continuous increase. But the charity of the wayfarer can never attain to equality with the charity of heaven, however much it be increased. Therefore it seems that the charity of the wayfarer does not remain in heaven.
q. 67 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, caritas nunquam excidit. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:8): "Charity never falleth away."
q. 67 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quando imperfectio alicuius rei non est de ratione speciei ipsius, nihil prohibet idem numero quod prius fuit imperfectum, postea perfectum esse, sicut homo per augmentum perficitur, et albedo per intensionem. Caritas autem est amor; de cuius ratione non est aliqua imperfectio, potest enim esse et habiti et non habiti, et visi et non visi. Unde caritas non evacuatur per gloriae perfectionem, sed eadem numero manet. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), when the imperfection of a thing does not belong to its specific nature, there is nothing to hinder the identical thing passing from imperfection to perfection, even as man is perfected by growth, and whiteness by intensity. Now charity is love, the nature of which does not include imperfection, since it may relate to an object either possessed or not possessed, either seen or not seen. Therefore charity is not done away by the perfection of glory, but remains identically the same.
q. 67 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod imperfectio caritatis per accidens se habet ad ipsam, quia non est de ratione amoris imperfectio. Remoto autem eo quod est per accidens, nihilominus remanet substantia rei. Unde, evacuata imperfectione caritatis, non evacuatur ipsa caritas. Reply to Objection 1. The imperfection of charity is accidental to it; because imperfection is not included in the nature of love. Now although that which is accidental to a thing be withdrawn, the substance remains. Hence the imperfection of charity being done away, charity itself is not done away.
q. 67 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod caritas non habet pro obiecto ipsam cognitionem, sic enim non esset eadem in via et in patria. Sed habet pro obiecto ipsam rem cognitam, quae est eadem, scilicet ipsum Deum. Reply to Objection 2. The object of charity is not knowledge itself; if it were, the charity of the wayfarer would not be the same as the charity of heaven: its object is the thing known, which remains the same, viz. God Himself.
q. 67 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod caritas viae per augmentum non potest pervenire ad aequalitatem caritatis patriae, propter differentiam quae est ex parte causae, visio enim est quaedam causa amoris, ut dicitur in IX Ethic. Deus autem quanto perfectius cognoscitur, tanto perfectius amatur. Reply to Objection 3. The reason why charity of the wayfarer cannot attain to the perfection of the charity of heaven, is a difference on the part of the cause: for vision is a cause of love, as stated in Ethic. ix, 5: and the more perfectly we know God, the more perfectly we love Him.




THE LOGIC MUSEUM II