The "Summa theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/suniniatheologi09thom

THE "SUMMA THEOLOGICA

THE

"SUMMA THEOLOGICA

OF

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

PART II.

{SECOND PART)

)}

LITERALLY TRANSLATED BY

FATHERS OF THE ENGLISH DOMINICAN

PROVINCE

FIRST NUMBER
(QQ. I._XLVI,)

R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD.

PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW

BENZIGER BROTHERS : NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO

I9I7
\ Alt rights resen>£(f]

Fr. INNOCENTIUS APAP., O.P., S.T.M.,

Censor. Theol.

imprimatur.

EDUS. CANONICUS SURMONT,

VicARius Generalis.

Westmonasterii.

APPROBATIO ORDINIS.

^ihil (Dbstat.

Fr. V. J. McNABB, O.P., S.T.B.,

Fr. ^LREDUS WHITACRE, O.P., S.T.L.

imprimatur.

Fr. BEDA JARRETT, O.P., S.T.L. , M.A.,

Prior Provincialis Asglije.

J^ONUINI,

(/I'c ?5 Ncri'eiiibris, 1916.

1 Hl institute of f?;EDlAEVAL STUDIES
10 EL^^SLEy PLACE
TORONTO 5, CANADA: r

2- ^^59
3 t^^

CONTENTS

QUESTION

I.

OF

II.

OF

III.

OF

IV.

OF

V.

OF

VI.

OF

VII.

OF

VIII.

OF

IX.

OF

X.

OF

XI.

OF

XII.

OF

XIII.

OF

XIV.

OF

XV.

OF

XVI.

OF

XVII.

OF

XVIII.

OF

XIX.

OF

XX.

OF

XXI.

OF

XXII.

OF

XXIII.

OF

XXIV.

OF

XXV.

OF

XXVI.

OF

XXVII.

OF

XXVIII.

OF

XXIX.

OF

XXX.

OF

{vices opposed to
faith)

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

THE INTERNAL ACT OF FAITH

THE EXTERNAL ACT OF FAITH

THE VIRTUE OF FAITH

THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH

THE CAUSE OF FAITH

THE EFFECTS OF FAITH -

THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE

UNBELIEF, IN GENERAL

HERESY -

APOSTASY

BLASPHEMY, IN GENERAL

BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE

HOLY GHOST
VICES OPPOSED TO THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE
THE PRECEPTS OF FAITH, KNOWLEDGE, AND

UNDERSTANDING • . -

HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF

THE SUBJECT OF HOPE - . - ,

THE GIFT OF FEAR - - _

DESPAIR -----
PRESUMPTION - - - -

THE PRECEPTS RELATING TO HOPE AND FEAR
CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF
THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY
THE OBJECT OF CHARITY
THE ORDER OF CHARITY

THE PRINCIPAL ACT OF CHARITY, WHICH IS TO LOV
JOY \

PE.\CE > {inter io)

MERCY

;■ J

>r effects of love)

PAGE

3

29

52
56

75

85
90

94
III

120

148

159
164

172
184

191

197
210
218
242
230

257
262

279

307

330

: 357

( 373

381

( 389

VI

CONTENTS

> {opposed to ■joy)

QUESTION

XXXI. OF BENEFICENCE \

XXXII. OF ALMSDEEDS I

XXXIII. OF FRATERNAL CORRECTION)

XXXIV. OF HATRED {opposed to love)

XXXV. OF SLOTH

XXXVI. OF ENVY

XXXVII. OF DISCORD ^

XXXVIII. OF CONTENTION

XXXIX. OF SCHISM

XL. OF WAR

XLI. OF STRIFE

XLII. OF SEDITION

XLiii. OF SCANDAL {opposed to beneficence)

XLIV. OF THE PRECEPTS OF CHARITY
XLV. OF THE GIFT OF WISDOM

XLVi. OF FOLLY {opposcd to wisdom)

{exterior effects of love)

{vices opposed to
peace)

{by thought)
{by word)

{by deed)

PAGE
407

462
472
481
486
491
500

553

565

THE '^SUMMA THEOLOGIGA"

SECOND PART OF THE SECOND PART.

PROLOGUE.

After the general treatise of virtues and vices, and other
matters connected with the matter of morals, we must now
consider each of these things in particular: for there is little
use in speaking about moral matters in general, since actions
are about particular things. Now moral matters can be
considered in particular from two points of view: first, from
the point of view of the moral matter itself, for instance by
considering a particular virtue or a particular vice ; secondly,
from the point of view of the various states of man, for in-
stance by considering subjects and superiors, active life and
contemplative life, or any other differences among men.

Accordingly, we shall treat first in a special way of those
matters which regard all the states of man, secondly in a
special way, of those matters which regard particular states.

As to the first, we must observe that if we were to treat of
each virture, gift, vice and precept separately, we should
have to say the same thing over and over again. For if one
wished to treat adequately of this precept : Thou shall nol
commit adultery, he would have to inquire about adultery
which is a sin, the knowledge about which depends on his
knowledge of the opposite virtue. The shorter and quicker
method, therefore, will be if we include the corn^ideration of
each virtue, together with its corresponding gift, opposite
vice, and aftirmative and negative precepts, in the same
treatise. Moreover tliis method will be suitable to the vices
n. ii. ( I

THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 2

according to their proper species. For it has been shown
above (I.-IL, QQ. XVIIL, LXXIL, LXXIII.) that vices and
sins differ in species according to the matter or object, and
not according to other differences of sins, for instance, in
respect of being sins of thought, word and deed, or com-
mitted through weakness, ignorance or mahce, and other
hke differences. Now the matter about which a virtue does
right, and the opposite vice deviates from the right, is the
same. Accordingly we may reduce the whole of moral
matters to the consideration of the virtues, which virtues
themselves may be reduced to seven in number, three of
which are theological, and of these we must treat first : while
the other four are the cardinal virtues, of which we shall
treat afterwards. Of the intellectual virtues there is one,
prudence, which is included and reckoned among the car-
dinal virtues : whereas art does not pertain to moral science
which is concerned with things to be done, for art is right
reason about things to he made, as stated above (I.-IL,
Q. LVIL, AA. 3, 4). The other three intellectual virtues,
namely, wisdom, understanding and knowledge agree, even
in name, with some of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Where-
fore we shall consider them while considering the gifts cor-
responding to those virtues. The other moral virtues are
all in some way reducible to the cardinal virtues, as was
explained above (I.-IL, Q. LXL, A. 3). Hence in treating
about each cardinal virtue we shall treat also of all the
virtues w^hich, in any way whatever, belong to that virtue,
as also of the opposite vices. In this way no matter per-
taining to morals will be overlooked.

QUESTION I.

OF FAITH.

{In Ten Articles.)

Having to treat now of the theological virtues, we shall
begin with Faith, secondly we shall speak of Hope, and
thirdly, of Charity.

The treatise on Faith will be fourfold: (i) Of faith itself:
(2) Of the corresponding gifts, knowledge and understand-
ing: (3) Of the opposite vices: (4) Of the precepts pertain-
ing to this virtue.

About faith itself we shall consider: (i) its object: (2) its
act : (3) the habit of faith.

Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:
(i) Whether the object of faith is the First Truth ?

(2) Whether the object of faith is something complex or
incomplex, i.e. whether it is a thing or a proposition ?

(3) Whether anything false can come under faith ?

(4) Whether the object of faith can be anything seen ?

(5) Whether it can be anything known ? (6) Whether the
things to be believed should be divided into a certain num-
ber of articles ? (7) Whether the same articles are of faith
for all times ? (8) Of the number of articles. (9) Of the
manner of embodying the articles in a symbol. (10) Who
has the right to propose a symbol of faith ?

First Article.

whether the object of faith is the first truth ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —
Objection i. It seems that the object of faith is not the
First Truth. For it seems that the object of faith is that

3

o. T. Art. t. THE " SUMMA THEOT.OGTCA " 4

wliich is proposed to us to be believed. Now not only things
pertaining to the (iodhead, i.e. the First Truth, are proposed
I0 us to be believed, but also things concerning Christ's
human nature, and the sacraments of the Church, and the
condition of creatures. Therefore the object of faitli is not
only the First Truth.

Obj. 2. Further, Faith and unbelief have the same object
since they are opposed to one another. Now unbelief can
be about all things contained in Holy Writ, for whichever
one of them a man denies, he is considered an unbeliever.
Therefore faith also is about all things contained in Holy
Writ. But there are many things therein, concerning man
and other creatures. Therefore the object of faith is not
only the First Truth, but also created truth.

Obj. 3. Further, Faith is condivided with charity, as stated
above (T-IL, Q. LXIL, A. 3). Now by charity we love not
only God, who is the sovereign Good, but also our neighbour.
Therefore the object of Faith is not only the First Truth.

On the contrary, Dionysius says {Div. Nom. vii.) thsit faith
is about the simple and everlasting truth. Now this is the First
Truth. Therefore the object of faith is the First Truth.

/ answer that, The object of every cognitive habit includes
two things : first, that which is known materially, and is the
material object, so to speak, and, secondly, that whereby it
is known, which is the formal aspect of the object. Thus
in the science of geometry, the conclusions are what is known
materially, while the formal aspect of the science is the
mean of demonstration, through which the conclusions are
known.

Accordingly if we consider, in faith, the formal aspect of
the object, it is nothing else than the First Truth. For the
faith ol which we are speaking, does not assent to anything,
except because it is revealed by God. Hence the mean on
which faith is based is the Divme Truth. If, however, we
consider materially the things to which faith assents, they
include not only God, but also many other things, which,
nevertheless, do not come under the assent of faith, except
as bearing some relation to (kxI, in as much as, to wit.

5 OBJECT OF FAITH g. i. Aht- 2

through certain effects of the Divine operation, man is helped
on his journey towards the enjoyment of (iod. Consequently
from this point of view also the object of faith is, in a way,
the First Truth, in as much as nothing comes under faith ex-
cept in relation to God, even as the object of the medical art
is health, for it considers nothing save in relation to health.

Reply Ohj. i. Things concerning Christ's human nature,
and the sacraments of the Church, or any creatures what-
ever, come under faith, in so far as by them we are directed
to God, and in as much as we assent to them on account of
the Divine Truth.

The same answer applies to the Second Objection, as
regards all things contained in Holy Writ.

Reply Obj. 3. Charity also loves our neighbour on account
of God, so that its object, properly speaking, is God, as we
shall show further on (Q. XXV., A. i).

Second Article.

wiietiiek the object of faith is something complex, by
way of a proposition ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the object of faith is not some-
thing complex by way of a proposition. For the object of
faith is the First Truth, as stated above (A. i). Now the
First Truth is something simple. Therefore the object of
faith is not something complex.

Obj. 2. Further, The exposition of faith is contained in
the symbol. Now the symbol docs not contain propositions,
but things: for it is not stated therein that God is almighty,
but: / believe in God . . . almighty. Therefore the object of
faith is not a proposition but a thing.

Obj. 3. Further, Faith is succeeded by vision, according
to I Cor. xiii. 12 : We see now through a glass in a dark manner:
but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then- I shall
know even as I am known. But the object of the heavenly
vision is something simple, for it is the Divine Essence.
Therefore the faith of the wayfarer is also.

Q. I. Art. 2. THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 6

On theconira/y, Faith is a mean between science and opinion.
Now the mean is in the same genus as the extremes. Since,
then, science and opinion are about propositions, it seems
that faith is hkewise about propositions; so that its object
is something complex.

/ answer that, The thing known is in the knower according
to the mode of the knower. Now the mode proper to the
human intellect is to know the truth by synthesis and analy-
sis, as stated in the First Part (Q. LXXXV., A. 5). Hence
things that are simple in themselves, are known by the
intellect with a certain amount of complexity, just as on the
other hand, the Divine intellect knows, without any com-
plexity, things that are complex in themselves.

Accordingly the object of faith may be considered in two
ways. First, as regards the thing itself which is believed,
and thus the object of faith is something simple, namely the
thing itself about which we have faith. Secondly, on the
part of the believer, and in this respect the object of faith
is something complex by way of a proposition.

Hence in the past both opinions have been held with a
certain amount of truth.

Reply Obj. i. This argument considers the object of faith
on the part of the thing believed.

Reply Obj. 2. The symbol mentions the things about which
faith is, in so far as the act of the believer is terminated in
them, as is evident from the manner of speaking about them.
Now the act of the believer does not terminate in a proposi-
tion, but in a thing. For as in science we do not form pro-
positions, except in order to have knowledge about things
through their means, so is it in faith.

Reply Obj. 3. The object of the heavenly vision will be
the First Truth seen in itself, according to i John iii. 2 : We
know that when He shall appear, we shall be like to Him : because
we shall see Him as He is : hence that vision will not be b}'"
way of a proposition but by way of simple understanding.
On the other hand, by faith, we do not apprehend the First
Truth as it is in itself. Hence the comparison fails.

7 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 3.

Third Article,
whether anything false can come under faith ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that something false can come under
faith. For faith is condivided with hope and charity. Now
something false can come under hope, since many hope to
have eternal life, who will not obtain it. The same may be
said of charity, for many are loved as being good, who, never-
theless, are not good. Therefore something false can be the
object of faith.

Obj. 2. Further, Abraham believed that Christ would be
born, according to John viii. 56: Abraham your father re-
joiced that he might see My day : he saw it, and was glad. But
after the time of Abraham, God might not have taken flesh,
for it was merely because He willed that He did, so that what
Abraham believed about Christ would have been false.
Therefore the object of faith can be something false.

Obj. 3. Further, The ancients believed in the future birth
of Christ, and many continued so to believe, until they heard
the preaching of the Gospel. Now, when once Christ was
born, even before He began to preach, it was false that Christ
was yet to be born. Therefore something false can come
under faith.

Obj. 4. Further, It is a matter of faith, that one should
believe that the true Body of Christ is contained in the
Sacrament of the altar. But it might happen that the
bread was not rightly consecrated, and that there was not
Christ's true Body there, but only bread. Therefore some-
thing false can come under faith.

On the contrary. No virtue that perfects the intellect is
related to the false, considered as the evil of the intellect, as
the Philosopher declares (Ethic, vi.). Now faith is a virtue
that perfects the intellect, as we shall show further on
(O. IV., AA. 2,5). Therefore nothing false can come under it.

/ answer that, Nothing comes under any power, habit or
act, except by means of the formal aspect of the object : thus

Q. I. AuT. 3 nUi " SUMiMA JHKOLOGICA " 8

colour cannot be seen except by means of light, and a con-
clusion cannot be known save through the mean ot demon-
stration. Now it has been stated (A. i) that the formal
aspect of the object of faith is the First Truth; so that
nothing can come under faith, save in so far as it stands under
the First Truth, under which nothing false can stand, as
neither can non-being stand under being, nor evil under
goodness. It follows therefore that nothing false can come
under faith.

Reply Obj. I. Since the true is the good of the intellect,
but not of the appetitive power, it follows that all virtues
whic^h perfect the intellect, exclude the false altogether, be-
cause it belongs to the nature of a virtue to bear relation
to the good alone. On the other hand those virtues which
perfect the appetitive faculty, do not entirely exclude the
false, for it is possible to act in accordance with justice or
temperance, while having a false opinion about what one is
doing. Therefore, as faith perfects the intellect, whereas
hope and charity perfect the appetitive part, the comparison
between them, fails.

Nevertheless neither can anything false come under hope,
for a man hopes to obtain eternal life, not by his own power
(since this would be an act of presumption), but with the
help of grace; and if he perseveres therein he will obtain
eternal life surely and infallibly.

In like manner it belongs to charity to love God, wher-
ever He may be ; so that it matters not to charity, whether
God be in the individual whom we love for God's sake.

Reply Obj. 2. That God would not take flesh, considered in
itself was possible even after Abraham's time, but in so far
as it stands in God's foreknowledge, it has a certain necessity
of infallibility, as explained in the First Part (Q. XIV.,
AA. 13, 15) : and it is thus that it comes under faith.
Hence in so far as it comes under faith, it cannot be false.

Reply Obj. 3. After Christ's birth, to believe in Him, was
to believe in Christ's birth at some time or other. The fixing
of the time, wherein some were deceived, was not due to
their faith, but to a human conjecture. For it is possible

9 OBJECT OF FAITH g. i.Art. 4.

for a believer to have a false opinion through a human con-
jecture, but it is quite impossible for a false opinion to be the
outcome of faith.

Reply Ohj. 4. The faith of the believer is not directed to
such and such accidents of bread, but to the fact that the
true Body of Christ is under the appearances of sensible
bread, when it is rightly consecrated. Hence if it be not
rightly consecrated, it docs not follow that anything false
comes under faith.

Fourth Akticli£.
whether the object of eaith can be somethlx(; seen ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the object of faith is something
seen. For Our Lord said to Thomas (John xx. 29) : Because
thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed. Therefore
vision and faith regard the same object.

Obj. 2. F\irther, The Apostle, while speaking of the know-
ledge of faith, says (i Cor. xiii. 12) : We see now through a glass
in a dark manner. Therefore what is believed is seen.

Obj. 3. Further, Faith is a spiritual light. Now something
is seen under every light. Therefore faith is of things seen.

Obj. 4. Further, Every sense is a kind of sight, as Augustine
states (De Verb. Domini, Serm. xxxiii.). But faith is of
things heard, according to Rom. x. 17 : Faith . . . cometh by
hearing. Therefore faith is of things seen.

On the contrary. The Apostle says (Heb. xi. i) that /«?/// is
the evidence of things that appear not.

I answer that, Faith implies assent of the intellect to that
which is believed. Now the intellect assents to a thing in
two ways. First, through being moved to assent by its very
object, which is known either by itself (as in the case of first
principles, which are held by the habit of understanding).
or through something else already known (as in the case of
conclusions which are held by the habit of science) . Secondlv
the intellect assents to something, not through being sufft-
cicntly moved to this assent by its proper object, but through
an act of choice, whereby it turns voluntarily to one side

Q. I. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 10

rather than to the other: and if this be accompanied by
doubt and fear of the opposite side, there will be opinion,
while, if there be certainty and no fear of the other side,
there will be faith.

Now those things are said to be seen which, of themselves,
move the intellect or the senses to knowledge of them.
Wherefore it is evident that neither faith nor opinion can
be of things seen either by the senses or by the intellect.

Reply Oh], r. Thomas saw one thing, and believed another .*
he saw the Man, and believing Him to be God, he made pro-
fession of his faith, saying: My Lord and my God.

Reply Obj. 2. Those things which come under faith can
be considered in two ways. First, in particular; and thus
they cannot be seen and believed at the same time, as shown
above. Secondly, in general, that is, under the common
aspect of credibility; and in this way they are seen by the
believer. For he would not believe unless, on the evidence
of signs, or of something similar, he saw that they ought to
be believed.

Reply Obj. 3. The light of faith makes us see what we
believe. For just as, by the habits of the other virtues, man
sees what is becoming to him in respect of that habit, so,
by the habit of faith, the human mind is directed to assent
to such things as are becoming to a right faith, and not to
assent to others.

Reply Obj. 4. Hearing is of words signifying what is
of faith, but not of the things themselves that are believed ;
hence it does not follow that these things are seen.

Fifth Article.

whether those things that are of faith can be
an object of science ? f

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —
Objection i. It seems that those things that are of faith
can be an object of science. For where science is lacking

* S. Gregory: Horn. xxvi. in Evang.

t Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion
through its demonstration.

II OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 5-

there is ignorance, since ignorance is the opposite of science.
Now we are not in ignorance of those things we have to be-
heve, since ignorance of such things savours of unbehef,
"according to i Tim. i. 13 : / did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Therefore things that are of faith can be an object of science.

Ohj. 2. Further, Science is acquired by reasons. Now
sacred writers employ reasons to inculcate things that are of
faith. Therefore such things can be an object of science.

Ohj. 3. Further, Things which are demonstrated are an
object of science, since a demonstration is a syllogism that
produces science. Now certain matters of faith have been
demonstrated by the philosophers, such as the Existence and
Unity of God, and so forth. Therefore things that are of
faith can be an object of science.

Obj. 4. Further, Opinion is further from science than faith
is, since faith is said to stand between opinion and science.
Now opinion and science can, in a way, be about the same
object, as stated in Poster, i. Therefore faith and science
can be about the same object also.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Horn. xxi. in Ev.) that when
a thing is manifest, it is the object, not of faith, but of perception.
Therefore things that are of faith are not the object of per-
ception, whereas what is an object of .science is the object
of perception. Therefore there can be no faith about things
which are an object of science.

/ answer that, All science is derived from self-evident
and therefore seen principles; wherefore all objects of
science must needs be, in a fashion, seen.

Now as stated above (A. 4) it is impossible that one and
the same thing should be believed and seen by the same
person. Hence it is equally impossible for one and the
same thing to be an object of science and of belief for the
same person. It may happen, however, that a thing which is
an object of vision or science for one, is believed by another :
since we hope to see some day what we now believe about
the Trinity, according to i Cor. xiii. 12: We see now through
a glass in a dark manner ; but then face to face : which vision
the angels possess already; so that what we believe, they see.

(J. 1. Aki. 5. THE " SUMMA THEOLOCilCA " 12

111 like manner it may liappcn that what is an object of
vision or scientific knowledge for one man, even in the state
of a wayfarer, is, for another man. an object ol faith, because
he does not know it by demonstration.

Nevertheless that which is proposed to be believed equally
by all, is equally unknown by all as an object of science :
such are the things which are of faith simply. Consequently
faith and science are not about the same things.

Reply Obj. I. Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that
are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in them-
selves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful,
on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration,
but by the light of faith which makes them see that they
ought to beheve them, as stated above (A. 4, ad 2, 3).

Reply Obj. 2. The reasons employed by holy men to prove
things that are of faith, are not demonstrations; they are
either persuasive arguments showing that what is proposed
to our faith is not impossible, or else they are proofs drawn
Irom the principles of faith, i.e. from the authority of Holy
Writ, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. ii.). Whatever is
based on these principles is as well proved in the eyes of the
faithful, as a conclusion drawn from self-evident principles
is in the eyes of all. Hence again, theology is a science, as
we stated at the outset of this work (P. I., 0. L, A. 2).

Reply Obj.^. Things which can be proved by demonstration
are reckoned among the articles of faith, not because they
are believed simply by all, but because they are a necessary
presupposition to matters of faith, so that those who do not
know them by demonstration must know them first of all
by faith.

Reply Obj. 4. As the Philosopher says [loc. cit.), science
and opinion about the same object can certainly be in different
men, as we have stated above about science and faith; yet
it is possible for one and the same man to have science and
faith about the same thing relatively, i.e. in relation to the
object, but not in the same respect. For it is possible for the
same person, about one and the same object, to know one thing
and to think another : and, in like manner, one may know by

13 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 6

demonstration the unity of the Godhead, and, by faith, the
Trinity. On the other hand, in one and the same man, about
the same object, and in the same respect, science is incom-
patible with either opinion or faith, yet for different reasons.
Because science is incompatible with opinion about the same
object simply, for the reason that science demands that its
object should be deemed impossible to be otherwise, whereas
it is essential to opinion, that its object should be deemed
possible to be otherwise. Yet that which is the object of faith,
on account of the certainty of faith, is also deemed impossible
to be otherwise ; and the reason why science and faith cannot
be about the same object and in the same respect is because
the object of science is something seen, whereas the object
of faith is the unseen, as stated above.

Sixth Article.

whether those things that are of faith should be
divided into certain articles ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that those things that are of faith
should not be divided into certain articles. For all things
contained in Holy Writ are matters of faith. But these, by
reason of their multitude, cannot be reduced to a certain
number. Therefore it seems superfluous to distinguish
certain articles of faith.

Ohj. 2. Further, Material differences can be multiplied
indefinitely, and therefore art should take no notice of them.
Now the formal aspect of the object of faith is one and indi-
visible, as stated above (A. i), viz. the First Truth, so that
matters of faith cannot be distinguished in respect of their
formal object. Therefore no notice should be taken of a
material division of matters of faith into articles.

Obj. 3 Further, It has been said by some that a}i article
is an indivisible truth concerning God, exacting (arctans) our
belief. Now^belief is a voluntary act, since, as Augustine
says (T/'^c/. xxiv. /// Joa)i.), no man believes against his will.

Q. I. Art. 6. THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 14

Therefore it seems that matters of faith should not be divided
into articles.

On the contrary, Isidore says : An article is a glimpse of
Divine truth, tending thereto. Now we can only get a glimpse
of Divine truth by way of analysis, since things which
in God are one, are manifold in our intellect. Therefore
matters of faith should be divided into articles.

/ answer that. The word article is apparently derived from
the Greek; for the Greek apOpov, which the Latin renders
articulus, signifies a fitting together of distinct parts : where-
fore the small parts of the body which fit together are called
the articulations of the limbs. Likewise, in the Greek
grammar, articles are parts of speech which are affixed to
words to show their gender, number or case. Again in
rhetoric, articles are parts that fit together in a sentence, for
Tully says [Rhet. iv.) that an article is composed of words
each pronounced singly and separately, thus : Your passion,
your voice, your look, have struck terror into your foes.

Hence matters of Christian faith are said to contain dis-
tinct articles, in so far as they are divided into parts, and
fit together. Now the object of faith is something unseen
in connexion with God, as stated above (A. 4). Conse-
quently any matter that, for a special reason, is unseen, is
a special article; whereas when several matters are known
or not known, under the same aspect, we are not to dis-
tinguish various articles. Thus one encounters one difficulty
in seeing that God suffered, and another in seeing that He
rose again from the dead, wherefore the article of the Resur-
rection is distinct from the article of the Passion. But
that He suffered, died and was buried, present the same
difficulty, so that if one be accepted, it is not difficult to
accept the others; wherefore all these belong to one
article.

Reply Obj. 1. Some things proposed to our belief are in
themselves of faith, while others are of faith, not in them-
selves but only in relation to others : even as in sciences cer-
tain propositions are put forward on their own account,
while others are put forward in order to manifest others,

15 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 6

Now, since the chief object of faith consists in those things
which we hope to see, according to Heb. xi. i : Faith is the
substance of things to he hoped for, it follows that those things
are in themselves of faith, which order us directly to eternal
life. Such are the Trinity of Persons in Almighty God,* the
mystery of Christ's Incarnation, and the like: and these are
distinct articles of faith. On the other hand certain things
in Holy Writ are proposed to our belief, not chiefly on their
own account, but for the manifestation of those mentioned
above : for instance, that Abraham had two sons, that a dead
man rose again at the touch of Eliseus' bones, and the like,
which are related in Holy Writ for the purpose of manifesting
the Divine majesty or the Incarnation of Christ: and such
things should not form distinct articles.

Reply Obj. 2. The formal aspect of the object of faith can
be taken in two ways : first, on the part of the thing believed,
and thus there is one formal aspect of all matters of faith,
viz. the First Truth: and from this point of view there is no
distinction of articles. Secondly, the formal aspect of
matters of faith can be considered from our point of view;
and thus the formal aspect of a matter of faith is that it is
something unseen; and from this point of view there are
various distinct articles of faith, as we saw above.

Reply Obj. 3. This definition of an article is taken from an
etymology of the word as derived from the Latin, rather than
in accordance with its real meaning, as derived from the
Greek: hence it does not carry much weight. Yet even
then it could be said that although faith is exacted of no
man by a necessity of coercion, since belief is a voluntary
act, yet it is exacted of him by a necessity of end, since he
that Cometh to God must believe that He is, and without faith it
is impossible to please God, as the Apostle declares (Heb.
xi. 6).

* The Leonine Edition reads ; The three Persons, the omnipo
tencc of God, etc,

Q. I. Art. 7. THI^ " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 16

Seventh Article.

whether the articles oe faith have increased in

course of time ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article: —

Objection i. It seems that the articles of faith have not
increased in course of time. Because, as the Apostle says
(Heb. xi. i), faith is the substance of things to be hoped for.
Now the same things are to be hoped for at all times. There-
fore, at all times, the same things are to be believed.

Obj. 2. Tnirther, Development has taken place, in sciences
devised by man, on account of the lack of knowledge in
those who discovered them, as the Philosopher observes
{Met. ii.). Now the doctrine of faith was not devised by man,
but was delivered to us by God, as stated in Eph. ii. 8: It is
the gift of God. Since then there can be no lack of knowledge
in God, it seems that knowledge of matters of faith was
perfect from the begiiinirg, and did not increase as time
went on.-

Obj. 3. Further, The operation of grace proceeds in orderly
fashion no less than the operation of nature. Now nature
always makes a beginning with perfect things, as Boethius
states (De Consol. iii.). Therefore it seems that the opera-
tion of grace also began with perfect things, so that those
who were the first to deliver the faith, knew it most per-
fectly.

Ohj. 4. Further, Just as the faith of Christ was delivered
to us through the apostles, vSO too, in the Old Testament, the
knowledge of faith was delivered by the early fathers to
those who came later, according to Deuter. xxxii. "j: Ask thy
father, and he will declare to thee. Now the apostles were
most fully instructed about the mysteries, for they
received them more fully than others, even as they received
them earlier, as a gloss says on Rom. viii, 23: Ourselves
also who have the first fruits of the Spirit. Therefore it seems
that knowledge of matters of faith has not increar.ed as time
went on.

17 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 7

On the contrary, Gregory says [Horn. xvi. in Ezech.) that
the knowledge of the holy fathers increased as time went
on . . . ; and the nearer they were to Our Saviour's coming,
the more fully did they receive the mysteries of salvation.

I answer that, The articles of faith stand in the same rela-
tion to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a
teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles
there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly
in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first
principle, to this one : The same thing cannot he affirmed and
denied at the same time, as the Philosopher states {Met. iv.).
In like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in
certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence,
and His providence over the salvation of man, according
to Heb xi.: He that cometh to God, must believe that He
is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him. For the
existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in
God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while
belief in His providence includes all those things which
God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are
the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some
of those articles which follow from these are contained
in others : thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes
belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.

Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the sub-
stance of the articles of faith, they have not received any
increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived
later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the
faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was
an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly,
since to those who lived in later times some were known
explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who
lived before them. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Exod.
vi. 2, 3): / am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God
of Jacoh"^ . . . and My name Adonai I did not show them :
David also said (Ps. cxviii. 100): / have had understanding

* Vulg., — / am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to
Jacob.

II. ii. I 2

g. 1. Aui. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " i8

above ancients : and the Apostle says (Eph. iii. 5) that the
mystery of Christ, in other generations was not known, as it
is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets.

Reply Obj. i. Among men the same things were always
to be hoped for from Christ. But as they did not acquire
this hope save through Christ, the further they were removed
from Christ in point of time, the further they were from
obtaining what they hoped for. Hence the. Apostle says
(Heb, xi. 13): All these died according to faith, not having re-
ceived the promises, but beholding them afar off. Now the
further off a thing is the less distinctly is it seen; wherefore
those who were nigh to Christ's advent had a more distinct
knowledge of the good things to be hoped for.

Reply Obj. 2. Progress in knowledge occurs in two ways
First, on the part of the teacher, be he one or many, who
makes progress in knowledge as time goes on: and this is
the kind of progress that takes place in sciences devised by
man. Secondly, on the part of the learner; thus the master,
w^ho has perfect knowledge of the art, does not deliver it all
at once to his disciple from the very outset, for he would not
be able to take it all in, but he condescends to the disciple's
capacity and instructs him little by little. It is in this way
that men made progress in the knowledge of faith as time
went on. Hence the Apostle (Gal. iii. 24) compares the
state of the Old Testament to childhood.

Reply Obj. 3. Two causes are requisite before actual
generation can take place, an agent, namely, and matter.
In the order ol the active cause, the more perfect is natur-
ally first; and in this way nature makes a beginning with
perfect things, since the imperfect is not brought to perfec-
tion, except by something perfect already in existence. On
the other hand, in the order of the material cause, the im-
perfect comes first, and in this way nature proceeds from the
imperfect to the perfect. Now in the manifestation of
faith, God is the active cause, having perfect knowledge
from all eternity ; while man is likened to matter in receiving
the influx of God's action. Hence, among men, the know-
ledge of faith had to proceed from imperfection to perfection;

19 OBJECT OF FAITH Q- i. Akt. 8

and, although some men have been after the manner of
active causes, through being doctors of the faith, never-
theless the manifestation of the Spirit is given to such men
for the common good, according to i Cor. xii. 7 ; so that the
knowledge of faith was imparted to the Fathers who were
instructors in the faith, so far as was necessary at the time
for the instruction of the people, either openly or in figures.
Reply Ohj. 4. The ultimate consummation of grace was
effected by Christ, wherefore the time of His coming is called
the time of fulness (Gal. iv. 4).* Hence those who were
nearest to Christ, whether before, like John the Baptist, or
after, like the apostles, had a fuller knowledge of the mys-
teries of faith; for even with regard to man's state we find
that the perfection of manhood comes in youth, and that a
man's state is all the more perfect, whether before or after,
the nearer it is to the time of his youth.

Eighth Article.

whether the articles of faith are suitably
formulated ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that the articles of faith are unsuit-
ably formulated. For those things, which can be known by
demonstration, do not belong to the faith as to an object of
belief for all, as stated above (A. 5). Now it can be known
by demonstration that there is one God; hence the Philoso-
pher proves this {Met. xii.) and many other philosophers
demonstrated the same truth. Therefore that there is one
God should not be set down as an article of faith.

Obj. 2. Further, Just as it is necessary to faith that we
should believe God to be almighty, so is it too that we
should believe Him to be all-knowing and provident for all,
about both of which points some have erred. Therefore,
among the articles of faith, mention should have been made
of God's wisdom and providence, even as of His omnipo-
tence.

Vulg., — J'ulnc6s of lime.

Q. I. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA ' 20

Ohj. 3. Further, To know the Father is the same thing as
to know the Son, according to John xiv. 9 : He that seeth Me,
seeth the Father also. Therefore there ought to be but one
article about the Father and Son, and, for the same reason,
about the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 4. Further, The Person of the Father is no less than
the Person of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now there
are several articles about the Person of the Holy Ghost, and
likewise about the Person of the Son. Therefore there
should be several articles about the Person of the Father.

Obj. 5. Further, Just as certain things are said by appro-
priation, of the Person of the Father and of the Person of the
Holy Ghost, so too is something appropriated to the Person
of the Son, in respect of His Godhead. Now, among the
articles of faith, a place is given to a work appropriated to
the Father, viz. the creation, and likewise, a work appro-
priated to the Holy Ghost, viz. that He spoke by the prophets.
Therefore the articles of faith should contain some work
appropriated to the Son in respect of His Godhead.

Obj. 6. Further, The sacrament of the Eucharist presents
a special diihculty over and above the other articles.
Therefore it should have been mentioned in a special
article: and consequently it seems that there is not a
sufficient number of articles.

On the contrary stands the authority of the Church who
formulates the articles thus.

/ answer that, As stated above (AA. 4, 6), to faith those
things in themselves belong, the sight of which we shall enjoy
in eternal life, and by which we are brought to eternal life.
Now two things are proposed to us to be seen in eternal life :
viz. the secret of the Godhead, to see which is to possess
happiness; and the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, by Whom
we have access to the glory of the sons of God, according to
Rom. V. 2. Hence it is written (John xvii. i) : This is eternal
life: that they may know Thee, the . . . true God, and Jesus
Christ Whom Thou hast sent. Wherefore the first distinction
in matters of faith is that some concern the majesty of the
Godhead, while others pertain to the mystery of Christ's

21 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 8

human nature, which is the mystery of godliness (i Tim.
iii. i6).

Now with regard to the majesty of the Godhead, three
things are proposed to our belief, first the unity of the
Godhead, to which the first article refers; secondly, the
trinity of the Persons, to which three articles refer, con'e-
sponding to the three Persons; and thirdly the works proper
to the Godhead, the first of which refers to the order of
nature, in relation to which the article about the creation
is proposed to us; the second refers to the order of grace, in
relation to which all matters concerning the sanctification
of man are included in one article; while the third refers to
the order of glory, and in relation to this another article is
proposed to us concerning the resurrection of the dead and
life everlasting. Thus there are seven articles referring to
the Godhead.

In like manner, with regard to Christ's human nature,
there are seven articles, the first of which refers to Christ's
incarnation or conception; the second, to His virginal birth;
the third, to His Passion, death and burial ; the fourth, to His
descent into hell; the fifth, to His resurrection; the sixth, to
His ascension; the seventh, to His coming for the judgment,
so that in all there are fourteen articles.

Some, however, distinguish twelve articles, six pertaining
to the Godhead, and six to the humanity. For they include
in one article the three about the three Persons ; because we
have one knowledge of the three Persons : while they divide
the article referring to the work of glorification into two,
viz. the resurrection of the body, and the glory of the soul.
Likewise they unite the conception and nativity into one
article.

Reply Obj. i. By faith we hold many truths about God,
which the philosophers were unable to discover by natural
reason, for instance His providence and omnipotence, and
that He alone is to be worshipped, all of which are contained
in the one article of the unity of God.

Reply Obj. 2. The very name of the Godhead implies a
kind of watching over things, as stated in the First Part

Q. I. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 22

(O. XIII., A. 8). Now in beings having an intellect, power
does not work save by the will and knowledge. Hence God's
omnipotence includes, in a way, universal knowledge and
providence. For He would not be able to do all He wills
in things here below, unless He knew them, and exercised
His providence over them.

Reply Obj. 3. We have but one knowledge of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as to the unity of the Essence,
to which the first article refers: but, as to the distinc-
tion of the Persons, which is by the relations of origin,
knowledge of the Father does indeed, in a way, include
knowledge of the Son, for He would not be Father, had
he not a Son; the bond whereof being the Holy Ghost.
From this point of view, there was a sufficient motive for
those who referred one article to the three Persons. Since,
however, with regard to each Person, certain points have to
be observed, about which some happen to fall into error,
looking at it in this way, we may distinguish three articles
about the three Persons. For Arius believed in the omni-
potence and eternity of the Father, but did not believe the
Son to be co-equal and consubstantial with the Father ; hence
the need for an article about the Person of the Son in order
to settle this point. In like manner it was necessary to
appoint a third article about the Person of the Holy Ghost,
against Macedonius. In the same way Christ's conception
and birth, just as the resurrection and life everlasting, can
from one point of view be united together in one article, in
so far as they are ordained to one end; while, from another
point of view, they can be distinct articles, in as much as
each one separately presents a special difficulty.

Reply Obj. 4. It belongs to the Son and Holy Ghost to be
sent to sanctify the creature; and about this several things
have to be believed. Hence it is that there are more articles
about the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost than about the
Person of the Father, Who is never sent, as we stated in the
FirstPart (0. XLIIL, A.4).

Reply Obj. 5. The sanctification of a creature by grace,
and its consummation by glory, is also effected by the gift of

23 OBJECT OF FAITH (). i. Art. 9

charity, which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, and by the
gift of wisdom, which is appropriated to the Son: so that
each work belongs by appropriation, but under different
aspects, both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. 6. Two things may be considered in the sacra-
ment of the Eucharist. One is the fact that it is a sacra-
ment, and in this respect it is like the other effects of sanc-
tifying grace. The other is that Christ's body is miracu-
lously contained therein, and thus it is included under God's
omnipotence, like all other miracles which are ascribed to
God's almighty power.

Ninth Article.

whether it is suitable for the articles of faith to be
embodied in a symbol ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is unsuitable for the articles
of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ
is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can
lawfully be made, since it is written (Deut. iv. 2) : You shall
not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take
away from it. Therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol
as a rule of faith, after Holy Writ had once been published.

Obj. 2. Further, According to the Apostle (Eph. iv. 5)
there is but one faith. Now the symbol is a profession of
faith. Therefore it is not fitting that there should be more
than one symbol.

Obj. 3. Further, The confession of faith, which is con-
tained in the symbol, concerns all the faithful. Now the
faithful are not all competent to believe in God, but only
those who have living faith. Therefore it is unfitting for
the symbol of faith to be expressed in the words: / believe
in one God.

Obj. 4. Further, The descent into hell is one of the articles
of faith, as stated above (A. 8). But the descent into hell
is not mentioned in the symbol of the Fathers. Therefore
the latter is expressed inadequately.

Q. I. Art. 9. THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 24

Obj. 5. Further, Augustine (Tract, xxix. in Joan.) ex-
pounding the passage, You believe in God, believe also in Me
(John xiv. i) says : We believe Peter or Paul, but we speak only
of believing ' in ' God. Since then the Cathohc Church is
merely a created being, it seems unfitting to say : In the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Obj. 6. Further, A symbol is drawn up that it may be a
rule of faith. Now a rule of faith ought to be proposed to
all, and that publicly. Therefore every symbol, besides the
symbol of the Fathers, should be sung at Mass. Therefore
it seems unfitting to publish the articles of faith in a
symbol.

On the contrary, The universal Church cannot err, since
she is governed by the Holy Ghost Who is the Spirit of
truth: for such was Our Lord's promise to His disciples
(John xvi. 13) : When He, the Spirit of truth, is come. He will
teach you all truth. Now the symbol is published by the
authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains
nothing defective.

/ answer that, As the Apostle says (Heb. xi. 6), he that
cometh to God, must believe that He is. Now a man cannot
believe, unless the truth be proposed to him that he may be-
lieve it. Hence the need for the truth of faith to be col-
lected together, so that it might the more easily be proposed
to all, lest anyone might stray from the truth through ignor-
ance of the faith. It is from its being a collection of maxims
of faith that the symbol* takes it name.

Reply Obj. i. The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ,
diffusely, under various modes of expression, and some-
times obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith
from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which
are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth
of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy
with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather to-
gether a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to
be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition
to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.

Reply Obj. 2. The same doctrine of faith is taught in all
* The Greek av^xfiaWetv.

25 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. 9

the symbols. Nevertheless, the people need more careful
instruction about the truth of faith, when errors arise, lest
the faith of simple-minded persons be corrupted by heretics.
It was this that gave rise to the necessity of formulating
several symbols, which nowise differ from one another, save
that on account of the obstinacy of heretics, one contains
more explicitly what another contains implicitly.

Reply Ohj. 3. The confession of faith is drawn up in a
symbol, in the person, as it were, of the whole Church, which
is united together by faith. Now the faith of the Church
is living faith ; since such is the faith to be found in all those
who are of the Church not only outwardly but also by
merit. Hence the confession of faith is expressed in a sym-
bol, in a manner that is in keeping with living faith, so that
even if some of the faithful lack living faith, they should
endeavour to acquire it.

Reply Ohj. 4. No error about the descent into hell had
arisen among heretics, so that there was no need to be more
explicit on that point. For this reason it is not repeated
in the symbol of the Fathers, but is supposed as already
settled in the symbol of the Apostles. For a subsequent
symbol does not cancel a preceding one ; rather does it ex-
pound it, as stated above [ad 2).

Reply Ohj. 5. If we say: ' In' the holy Catholic Church,
this must be taken as verified in so far as our faith is directed
to the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies the Church; so that the
sense is: / helievc in the Holy Ghost sanctifying the Church.
But it is better and more in keeping with the common use,
to omit the in, and say simply, the holy Catholic Church, as
Pope Leo* observes.

Reply Ohj. 6. Since the symbol of the Fathers is an explana-
tion of the symbol of the Apostles, and was drawn up after
the faith was already spread abroad, and when the Church
was already at peace, it is sung publicly in the Mass. On
the other hand the symbol of the Apostles, which was
drawn up at the time of persecution, before the faith was
made public, is said secretly at Prime and Compline, as
though it were against the darkness of past and future errors
* Rufmus, — Comm. in Sym. A post.

Q. I. Art. io THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 26

Tenth Article.

whether it belongs to the sovereign pontiff to
draw up a symbol of faith ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it does not belong to the Sover-
eign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. For a new
edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to explain
the articles of faith, as stated above (A. 9). Now, in the
Old Testament, the articles of faith were more and more
explained as time went on, by reason of the truth of faith
becoming clearer through greater nearness to Christ, as
stated above (A. 7). Since then this reason ceased with
the advent of the New Law, there is no need for the
articles of faith to be more and more explicit. Therefore
it does not seem to belong to the authority of the Sovereign
Pontiff to draw up a new edition of the symbol.

Ohj. 2. Further, No man has the power to do what is for-
bidden under pain of anathema by the universal Church.
Now it was forbidden under pain of anathema by the
universal Church, to m ,ke a new edition of the symbol.
For it is stated in the : cts of the first council of Ephesus
(P. ii., Act. 6) that after the symbol of the Nicene council had
been read through, the holy synod decreed th:J it was unlawful
to utter, write or draw up any other creed, than that which
was defined by the Fathers assembled at Nicaea together with
the Holy Ghost, and this under pain of anathema. The
same was repeated in the acts of the council of Chalcedon
(P. ii.. Act. 5). Therefore it seems that the Sovereign
Pontiff has no authority to publish a new edition of the
symbol.

Obj. 3. Further, Athanasius was not the Sovereign Pon-
tiff, but patriarch of Alexandria, and yet he published a sym-
bol which is sung in the Church. Therefore it does not
seem to belong to the Sovereign Pontiff any more than to
other bishops, to publish a new edition of the symbol.

27 OBJECT OF FAITH Q. i. Art. io

On the contrary, The symbol was drawn up by a general
council. Now such a council cannot be convoked other-
wise than by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as
stated in the Decretals (Dist. xvii., Cap. 4, 5). Therefore
an edition of the symbol belongs to the authority of the
Sovereign Pontiff.

I answer that, As stated above {Obj. i), a new edition of
the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the
errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new
edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is
empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they
may be held by all with iinshaken faith. Now this belongs
to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, to whom the
more important and more difficult questions that arise in
the Church are referred, as stated in the Decretals (Extra,
De Baptismo, Cap. Majores). Hence Our Lord said to
Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke xxii. 32) : /
have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou,
being once converted, confirm thy brethren. The reason of
this is that there should be but one faith of the whole
Church, according to i Cor. i. 10 : That you all speak the
same thing, and that there be no schisms among you : and this
could not be secured unless any question of faith that
mjay arise be decided by him who presides over the whole
Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his
decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of
the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol,
as do all other matters which concern the whole Church,
such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

Reply Obj. i. The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit
in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since,
according to 2 Pet. iii. 16, some men are so evil-minded as
to pervert the apostolic teaching and other doctrines and
Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time
went on to express the faith more explicitly against the
errors which arose.

Reply Obj. 2. This prohibition and sentence of the coimcil
was intended for private individuals, who have no busi-

g. I. Art. io THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 28

ness to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the
general council did not take away from a subsequent
council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol,
containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with
greater explicitness. For every council has taken into
account that a subsequent council would expound matters
more fully than the preceding council, if this became neces-
sary through some heresy arising. Consequently this
belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the
council is convoked, and its decision confirmed

Reply Obj. 3. Athanasius drew up a declaration of
faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way
of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of
speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth
of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign
Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.

QUESTION 11.

OF THE ACT OF FAITH.
{In Ten Articles,)

Wh must now consider the act of faith, and (i) the internal
act, (2) the external act.

Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:
(i) What is to believe, which is the internal act of faith ?
(2) In how many ways is it expressed ? (3) Whether it
is necessary for salvation to believe in anything above
natural reason ? (4) Whether it is necessary to believe
those things that are attainable by natural reason ?
(5) Whether it is necessary for salvation to believe certain
things explicitly ? (6) Whether all are equally bound to
explicit faith ? (7) Whether explicit faith in Christ is
always necessary for salvation ? (8) Whether it is neces-
sary for salvation to believe in the Trinity explicitly ?
(9) Whether the act of faith is meritorious ? (10) WTiether
human reason diminishes the merit of faith ?

First Article,
whether to believe is to think with assent?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that to believe is not to think with
assent. Because the Latin word cogitatio (thought) implies a
research, for cogitare {to think) seems to be equivalent to
coagitare i.e. to discuss together. Now Damascene says {De
Fide Orthod. iv.) that faith is an assent without research.
Therefore thinking has no place in the act of faith.

29

(J. 2. Art. 1 THE " SUJVIMA THEOLOC.ICA " 30

Obj. 2. Further, Faith resides in the reason, as we shall
show further on (Q. IV., A. 2). Now to think is an aet of
the cogitative power, which belongs to the sensitive faculty,
as stated in the First Part (O. LXXVIIL, A. 4). Therefore
thought has nothing to do with faith.

Obj. 3. Further, To believe is an act of the intellect, since
its object is truth. But assent seems to be an act not of the
intellect, but of the will, even as consent is, as stated above
(I. -II., Q. XV., A. I, ad 3). Therefore to believe is not to
think with assent.

On the contrary, This is how to believe is defined by Augus-
tine {De Praedest. Sanct. ii.).

/ answer that, To think can be taken in three ways. First,
in a general way for any kind of actual consideration of the
intellect, as Augustine observes {De Trin. xiv.) : By under-
standing I mean now the faculty whereby we understand when
thinking. Secondly, to think is more strictly taken for that
consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some
kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival
at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of
sight. In this sense Augustine says (De Trin. xv.) that
the Son of God is not called the Thought, but the Word of God.
When our thought realizes what we know and takes form there-
from, it becomes our word. Hence the Word of God must be
understood without any thinking on the part of God, for there
is nothing there that can take form, or be unformed. In this
way thought is, properly speaking, the movement of the
mind while yet deliberating, and not yet perfected by the
clear sight of truth. Since, however, such a movement of
the mind may be one of deliberation either about universal
notions, which belongs to the intellectual faculty, or about
particular matters, which belongs to the sensitive part,
hence it is that to think is taken secondly for an act of the
deliberating intellect, and thirdly for an act of the cogitative
power.

Accordingly, if to think be understood broadly according
to the first sense, then to think with assent, does not express
completely what is meant by to believe: since, in this way^

31 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 1

a man thinks with assent even when he considers what he
knows by science,* or understands. If, on the other hand,
to think be understood in the second way, then this expresses
completely the nature of the act of believing. For among
the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent
without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers
the things that he knows by science,* or understands, for
this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the
intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent,
whether they incline to neither side, as in one who doubts ;
or incline to one side rather than the other, but on
account of some slight motive, as in one who suspects; or
incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who
opines. But this act to believe, cleaves firmly to one side,
in which respect belief has something in common with
science * and understanding ; yet its knowledge does
not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees
with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to
the believer to think with assent : so that the act of believing
is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which
are about the true or the false.

Reply Obj. i. Faith has not that research of natural
reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research
into those things w^hereby a man is induced to believe, for
instance that such things have been uttered by God and
confirmed by miracles.

Reply Obj. 2. To think is not taken here for the act of the
cogitative power, but for an act of the intellect, as explained
above .

Reply Obj. 3. The intellect of the believer is determined
to one object, not by the reason, but by the will, wherefore
assent is taken here for an act of the intellect as determined
to one object by the will.

* Cf. footnote on p. 10.

Q. 2. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 32

Second Article.

whether the act of faith is suitably distinguished
as believing god, believing in a god, and believing

IN GOD ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the act of faith is unsuitably
distinguished as beheving God, beUeving in a God, and
beheving in God. For one habit has but one act. Now
faith is one habit since it is one virtue. Therefore it is
unreasonable to say that there are three acts of faith.

Ohj. 2. Further, That which is common to all acts of faith
should not be reckoned as a particular kind of act of faith.
Now to believe God is common to all acts of faith, since faith
is founded on the First Truth. Therefore it seems unreason-
able to distinguish it from certain other acts of faith.

Obj. 3. Further, That which can be said of unbelievers,
cannot be called an act of faith. Now unbelievers can be
said to believe in a God. Therefore it should not be reck-
oned an act of faith.

Obj. 4. Further, Movement towards the end belongs to
the will, whose object is the good and the end. Now to
believe is an act, not of the will, but of the intellect. There-
fore to believe in God, which implies movement towards an
end, should not be reckoned as a species of that act.

On the contrary is the authority of Augustine who makes
this distinction (De Verb. Dom. — cf. Serm. Ixi. — Tract, xxix.
in Joan.).

I answer that, The act of any power or habit depends on
the relation of that power or habit to its object. Now the
object of faith can be considered in three ways. For, since
to believe is an act of the intellect, in so far as the will moves
it to assent, as stated above (A. i, ad 3), the object of faith
can be considered either on the part of the intellect, or on
the part of the will that moves the intellect.

If it be considered on the part of the intellect, then two
things can be observed in the object of faith, as stated above

33 THE ACT OF FAITH g. 2. Art. 3

(0. I., A. i). One of these is the material object of faith,
and in this way an act of faith is to believe in a God ; because,
as stated above (ibid.) nothing is proposed to our behef,
except in as much as it is referred to God. The other is
the formal aspect of the object, for it is the medium on
account of which we assent to such and such a point of
faith; and thus an act of faith is to believe God, since, as
stated above [ibid.) the formal object of faith is the First
Truth, to Which man gives his adhesion, so as to assent
for Its sake to whatever he believes.

Thirdly, if the object of faith be considered in so far as
the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is to believe
in God. For the First Truth is referred to the will, through
having the aspect of an end.

Reply Obj. i. These three do not denote different acts of
faith, but one and the same act having different relations to
the object of faith.

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3. Unbelievers cannot be said to believe in a
God as we understand it in relation to the act of faith. For
they do not believe that God exists under the conditions
that faith determines; hence they do not truly believe in a
God, since, as the Philosopher observes {Met. ix.) to know
simple things defectively is not to know them at all.

Reply Obj. 4. As stated above (I.-IL, O. IX., A. i) the
will moves the intellect and the other powers of the soul to
the end: and in this respect an act of faith is to believe in
God.

Third Article.

whether it is necessary for salvation to believe
anything above the natural reason ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems unnecessary for salvation to believe
anything above the natural reason. For the salvation and
perfection of a thing seem to be sufficiently insiued by its
natural endowments. Now matters of faith, surpass man's

u. ii. I ^

Q. 2. Art. 3 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 34

natural reason, since they are things unseen as stated above
(Q. I., A. 4). Therefore to believe seems unnecessary for
salvation.

Obj. 2. Further, It is dangerous for man to assent to
matters, wherein he cannot judge whether that which
is proposed to him be true or false, according to Job xii. 11:
Doth not the ear discern words P Now a man cannot form a
judgment of this kind in matters of faith, since he cannot
trace them back to first principles, by which all our judg-
ments are guided. Therefore it is dangerous to believe in
such matters. Therefore to believe is not necessary for
salvation.

Obj. 3. Further, Man's salvation rests on God, according
to Ps. xxxvi. 39: But the salvation of the just is from the Lord.
Now the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being under-
stood by the things that are made ; His eternal power also and
Divinity, according to Rom. i. 20: and those things which
are clearly seen by the understanding are not an object of
belief. Therefore it is not necessary for man's salvation,
that he should believe certain things.

On the contrary. It is written (Heb. xi. 6) : Without faith
it is impossible to please God.

I answer that, Wherever one nature is subordinate to an-
other, we find that two things concur towards the perfection
of the lower nature, one of which is in respect of that nature's
proper movement, while the other is in respect of the move-
ment of the higher nature. Thus water by its proper move-
ment moves towards the centre (of the earth), while accord-
ing to the movement of the moon, it moves round the centre
by ebb and flow. In like manner the planets have their
proper movements from west to east, while in accordance
with the movement of the first heaven, they have a move-
ment from east to west. Now the created rational nature
alone is immediately subordinate to God, since other crea-
tures do not attain to the universal, but only to some-
thing particular, while they partake of the Divine goodness
either in being only, as inanimate things, or also in living,
and in knowing singulars, as plants and animals; whereas

35 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 3

the rational nature, in as much as it apprehends the universal
notion of good and being, is immediately related to the
universal principle of being.

Consequently the perfection of the rational creature con-
sists not only in what belongs to it in respect of its nature,
but also in that which it acquires through a supernatural
participation of Divine goodness. Hence it was said above
(I. -II., Q. III., A. 8) that man's ultimate happiness consists
in a supernatural vision of God: to which vision man cannot
attain unless he be taught by God, according to John vi. 45 :
Every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh
to Me. Now man acquires a share of this learning, not
indeed all at once, but by little and little, according to the
mode of his nature: and every one who learns thus must
needs believe, in order that he may acquire science in a perfect
degree; thus also the Philosopher remarks [Elench. i.) that it
behoves a learner to believe.

Hence, in order that a man arrive at the perfect vision
of heavenly happiness, he must first of all believe God, as a
disciple believes the master who is teaching him.

Reply Obj. i. Since man's nature is dependent on a
higher nature, natural knowledge does not suffice for its
perfection, and some supernatural knowledge is necessary,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. Just as man assents to first principles, by
the natural light of his intellect, so does a virtuous man, by
the habit of virtue, judge aright of things concerning that
virtue; and in this way, by the light of faith which God
bestows on him, a man assents to matters of faith and not
to those which are against faith. Consequently there is
no danger or condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,
and whom He has enlightened by faith.

Reply Obj. 3. In many respects faith perceives the in-
visible things of God in a higher way than natural reason
does in proceeding to God from His creatures. Hence it
is written (Ecclus. iii. 25): Many things arc shown to thee
above the understanding of ma)i.

g. 2. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 36

Fourth Article.

whether it is necessary to believe those things which
can be proved by natural reason ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems unnecessary to believe those things
which can be proved by natural reason. For nothing is
superfluous in God's works, much less even than in the works
of nature. Now it is superfluous to employ other means,
where one already suflices. Therefore it would be super-
fluous to receive by faith, things that can be known by natural
reason.

Ohj. 2. Further, Those things must be believed, which
are the object of faith. Now science and faith are not about
the same object, as stated above (0. L, AA. 4, 5). Since
therefore all things that can be known by natural reason
are an object of science, it seems that there is no need to
believe what can be proved by natural reason.

Ohj. 3. Further, All things knowable scientifically* would
seem to come under one head: so that if some of them are
proposed to man as objects of faith, in like manner the others
should also be believed. But this is not true. Therefore
it is not necessary to believe those things which can be proved
by natural reason.

On the contrary, It is necessary to believe that God is one
and incorporeal : which things philosophers prove by natural
reason.

/ answer that, It is necessary for man to accept by faith
not only things which are above reason, but also those which
can be known by reason : and this for three motives. First,
in order that man may arrive more quickly at the know-
ledge of Divine truth. Because the science to whose pro-
vince it belongs to prove the existence of God, is the last of
all to offer itself to human research, since it presupposes
many other sciences: so that it would not be until late in
life that man would arrive at the knowledge of God. The
second reason is, in order that the knowledge of God may

* Cf. foolnulc on p. lo.

37 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 5

be more general. For many are unable to make progress
in the study of science, either through dulness of mind, or
through having a number of occupations and temporal
needs, or even through laziness in learning, all of whom
would be altogether deprived of the knowledge of Ciod,
unless Divine things were brought to their knowledge under
the guise of faith. The third reason is for the sake of certi-
tude. For human reason is very deficient in things con-
cerning God. A sign of this is that philosophers in their
researches, by natural investigation, into human affairs, have
fallen into many errors, and have disagreed among them-
selves. And consequently, in order that men might have
knowledge of (lod, free of doubt and uncertainty, it was
necessary for Divine matters to be delivered to them by
way of faith, being told to them, as it were, by God Himself
Who cannot lie.

Reply Obj. i. The researches of natural reason do not
suffice mankind for the knowledge of Divine matters, even
of those that can be proved by reason : and so it is not super-
fluous if these others be believed.

Reply Obj. 2. Science and faith cannot be in the same sub-
ject and about the same object: but what is an object of
science for one, can be an object of faith for another, as
stated above (O. L, A. 5).

Reply Obj. 3. Although all things that can be known by
science are of one common scientific aspect, they do not all
alike lead man to beatitude : hence they are not all equally
proposed to our belief.

Fifth Article.

wiikthkr man is bound to believe axvthing

explicitly ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that man is not bound to believe
anything explicitly. For no man is bound to do what is
not in his power. Now it is not in man's power to believe a
thing explicitly, for it is written (Rom. x. 14, 15) : How shall

Q. 2. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOCxICA " 38

they believe Him, of whom they have not heard ? And how
shall they hear without a preacher ? And how shall they preach
unless they he sent ? Therefore man is not bound to believe
anything exphcitly.

Ohj. 2. Further, Just as we are directed to God by faith,
so are we by charity. Now man is not bound to keep the
precepts of charity, and it is enough if he be 'ready to fulfil
them: as is evidenced by the precept of Our Lord (Matth.
V. 39) : If one strike thee on one (Vulg., — thy right) cheek, turn
to him also the other; and by others of the same kind, according
to Augustine's exposition (De Serm. Dom. in monte). There-
fore neither is man bound to believe anything explicitly,
and it is enough if he be ready to believe whatever God pro-
poses to be believed.

Ohj. 3. Further, The good of faith consists in obedience,
according to Rom. i. 5 : For ohedience to the faith in all nations.
Now the virtue of obedience does not require man to keep
certain fixed precepts, but it is enough that his mind be
ready to obey, according to Ps. cxviii. 60: I am ready and
am not troubled; that I may keep Thy commandments. There-
fore it seems enough for faith too, that man should be
ready to believe whatever God may propose, without his
believing anything explicitly.

On the contrary. It is written (Heb. xi. 6) : He that cometh
to God, must believe that .e is, and is a rewarder to them that
seek Him.

I answer that. The precepts of the Law, which man is
bound to fulfil, concern acts of virtue which are the means
of attaining salvation. Now an act of virtue, as stated
above (L-IL, 0. LX., A. 5) depends on the relation of the
habit to its object. Again two things may be considered
in the object of any virtue; namely, that which is the
proper and direct object of that virtue, and that which is
accidental and consequent to the object properly so called.
Thus it belongs properly and directly to the object of forti-
tude, to face the dangers of death, and to charge at the foe
with danger to oneself, for the sake of the common good:
yet that, in a just war, a man be armed, or strike another

39 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 5

with his sword, and so forth, is reduced to the object of
fortitude, but indirectly.

Accordingly, just as a virtuous act is required for the ful-
filment of a precept, so is it necessary that the virtuous act
should terminate in its proper and direct object : but, on the
other hand, the fulfilment of the precept does not require
that a virtuous act should terminate in those things which
have an accidental or secondary relation to the proper and
direct object of that virtue, except in certain places and at
certain times. We must, therefore, say that the direct
object of faith is that whereby man is made one of the
Blessed, as stated above (Q. I., A. 8) : while the indirect and
secondary object comprises all things delivered by God to
us in Holy Writ, for instance that Abraham had two sons,
that David was the son of Jesse, and so forth.

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of
faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to
have faith ; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound
to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready
to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe what-
ever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he
bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to
him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith.

Reply Ohj. i. If we understand those things alone to be
in a man's power, which we can do without the help of grace,
then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do
without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and
our neighbour, and likewise to believe the articles of faith.
But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help to
whomsoever it is given from above it is mercifully given ; and
from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment
of a previous, or at least of original, sin, as Augustine states
{De Corr. et Grat. v., vi.).

Reply Ohj. 2. Man is bound to love definitely those lovable
things which are properly and directly the objects of charity,
namely, God and our neighbour. The objection refers to
those precepts of charity which belong, as a consequence,
to the object of charity.

Q 2. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 40

Reply Obj. 3. The virtue of obedience is seated, properly
speaking, in the will ; hence promptness of the will subject
to authority, suffices for the act of obedience, because it is
the proper and direct object of obedience. But this or that
precept is accidental or consequent to that proper and
direct object.

Sixth Article,
whether all are equally bound to have explicit

FAITH ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that all are equally bound to have
explicit faith. For all are bound to those things which are
necessary for salvation, as is evidenced by the precepts of
charity. Now it is necessary for salvation that certain
things should be believed explicitly. Therefore all are
equally bound to have explicit faith.

Obj. 2. Further, No one should be put to test in matters
that he is not bound to believe. But simple persons are
sometimes tested in reference to the slightest articles
of faith. Therefore all are bound to believe everything
explicitly.

Obj. 3. Further, If the simple are bound to have, not
explicit but only implicit faith, their faith must needs be
implied in the faith of the learned. But this seems unsafe,
since it is possible for the learned to err. Therefore it seems
that the simple should also have explicit faith; so that all
are, therefore, equally bound to have explicit faith.

On the contrary, It is written (Job i. 14) : The oxen were
ploughing, and the asses feeding beside them, because, as
Gregory expounds this passage {Moral, ii.), the simple,
who are signified by the asses, ought, in matters of faith, to
stay by the learned, who are denoted by the oxen.

/ answer that. The unfolding of matters of faith is the
result of Divine revelation: for matters of faith surpass
natural reason. Now Divine revelation reaches those of
lower degree through those who are over them, in a certain

41 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 6

order; to men, for instance, through the angels, and to the
lower angels through the higher, as Dionysius explains {Coel.
Hier. iv., vii.). In like manner, therefore, the unfolding of
faith must needs reach men of lower degree through those
of higher degree. Consequently, just as the higher angels,
who enlighten those who arc below them, have a fuller
knowledge of Divine things than the lower angels, as
Dionysius states [ihid. xii.), so too, men of higher degree,
whose business it is to teach others, are under obligation
to have fuller knowledge of matters of faith, and to believe
them more explicitly.

Reply Obj. 1. The unfolding of the articles of faith is not
equally necessary for the salvation of all, since those of
higher degree, whose duty it is to teach others, are bound
to believe explicitly more things than others are.

Reply Obj. 2. Simple persons should not be put to the
test about subtle questions of faith, unless they be suspected
of having been corrupted by heretics, who are wont to cor-
rupt the faith of simple people in such questions. If, how-
ever, it is found that they are free from obstinacy in their
heterodox sentiments, and that it is due to their simplicity,
it is no fault of theirs.

Reply Obj. 3. The simple have no faith implied in that of
the learned, except in so far as the latter adhere to the Divine
teaching. Hence the Apostle says (i Cor. iv. 16) : Be ye
followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Hence it is not
human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the nile of
faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he
does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think
that the learned believe aright ; unless the simple hold
obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of
the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord
said: (Luke xxii. 32): / have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy
faith fail not.

Q. 2. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 42

Seventh Article.

whether it is necessary for the salvation of all,
that they should believe explicitly in the
mystery of christ ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is not necessary for the
salvation of all that they should believe explicitly in the
mystery of Christ. For man is not bound to believe
explicitly what the angels are ignorant about: since the
unfolding of faith is the result of Divine revelation,
which reaches man by means of the angels, as stated
above (A. 6: P. I., 0. CXI., A. i). Now even the angels
were in ignorance of the mystery of the Incarnation:
hence, according to the commentary of Dionysius (Coel.
Hier. vii.), it is they who ask (Ps. xxiii. 8): Who is this king
of glory ? and (Isa. Ixiii. i) : Who is this that cometh from
Edom ? Therefore men were not bound to believe explicitly
in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation.

Ohj. 2. Further, It is evident that John the Baptist was
one of the teachers, and most nigh to Christ, Who said
of him (Matth. xi. 11) that there hath not risen among them
that are horn of women, a greater than he. Now John the
Baptist does not appear to have known the mystery of
Christ explicitly, since he asked Christ (Matth. xi. 3): Art
Thou He that art to come, or look we for another? There-
fore even the teachers were not bound to explicit faith in
Christ.

Ohj. 3. Further, Many gentiles obtained salvation through
the ministry of the angels, as Dionysius states {Coel. Hier.
ix.). Now it would seem that the gentiles had neither ex-
plicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no
revelation. Therefore it seems that it was not necessary
for the salvation of all to believe explicitly in the mystery
of Christ.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vii.,
Ep. cxc.)' Our faith is sound if we helieve that no man, old

43 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 7

or young, is delivered from the contagion of death and the bonds
of sin, except by the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ.

I answer that. As stated above (A. 5, 0. L, A. 8), the
object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing
through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery
of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which
men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts iv. 12): There
is no other name mider heaven given to men, whereby we must
be saved. Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of
Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all
persons, but this belief differed according to differences of
times and persons. The reason of this is that before the
state of sin, man believed explicitly in Christ's Incarnation,
in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory,
but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the
Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge
of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had fore-
knowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that
he said (Gen. ii. 24): Wherefore a man shall leave father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, of which the Apostle
says (Eph. v. 32) that this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ
and the Church, and it is incredible that the first man was
ignorant about this sacrament.

But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not
only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion
and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered
from sin and death: for they would not, else, have fore-
shadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before
and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known
by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the
veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by
God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their know-
ledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated
above (Q. I., A. 7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more
distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk
are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly
as regards those which are observed throughout the Church,

O. 2. Art. 7 THE " SIJMMA THEOLOGICA " 44

and piiblioly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to
the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (0. 1., A. 8).
As to other minute points in reference to the articles of
the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more
or less explicitly according to each one's state and ofhcc.

Reply Obj. i. The mystery of the Kingdom of God was
not entirely hidden from the angels, as Augustine observes
(Gen. ad lit. v.), yet certain aspects thereof were better
known to them when Christ revealed them to them.

Reply Obj. 2. It was not through ignorance that John the
Baptist inquired of Christ's advent in the flesh, since he had
clearly professed his belief therein, saying: / saw, and I gave
testimony, tJiat this is the Son of God (John i. 34). Hence he
did not say: Art Thou He that hast come? but Art Thou He
that art to come ? thus asking about the future, not about the
past. Likewise it is not to be believed that he was ignorant
of Christ's future Passion, for it was he who said: Behold
the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins
(Vulg., — sin) of the world, thus foretelling His future im-
molation; and sirxe other prophets had foretold it, as
may be seen especially in Isaias (liii.). We may therefore
say with Gregory (Hom. xxvi. in Ev.) that he asked this
question, being in ignorance as to whether Christ would
descend into hell in His own Person. But he did not ignore
the fact that the power of Christ's Passion would be extended
to those who were detained in Limbo, according to Zach.
ix. II : Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth
Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water; nor was he
bound to believe explicitly, before its fulfilment, that Christ
was to descend thither Himself.

It may also be replied that, as Ambrose observes in his
commentary on Luke vii. 19, he made this inquiry, not from
doubt or ignorance but from devotion : or again, with Chry-
sostom (Horn, xxxvii. in Matth.), that he inquired, not as
though ignorant himself, but because he wished his disciples
to be satisfied on that point, through Christ: hence the
latter framed His answer so as to instruct the disciples, by
pointing to the signs of His works.

45 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 8

Reply Obj. 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations
of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read
(Job xix. 25) : / know that my Redeemer liveth. The Sibyl
too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine relates
(Contra Faust, xv.). Moreover we read in the history of the
Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his
mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on
whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: Christ
shall he horn of a virgin, and in Him I helieve. 0 sun, during
the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shall see me again
(cf Baron. Annal., a.d. 780). If, however, some were saved
without receiving any revelation, they were not saved with-
out faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in
Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith
through believing in Divine providence, since they believed
that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was
pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the
Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job xxxv. 11 :
Who teachelh us more than the beasts of the earth.

Eighth Article.

whether it is necessary for salvation to believe
explicitly in the trinity ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article: — ■

Objection i. It seems that it was not necessary for salva-
tion to believe explicitly in the Trinity. For the Apostle
says (Heb. xi. 0) : He that comcth to God must believe that He
is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him. Now one can
believe this without believing in the Trinity. Therefore it
was not necessary to believe explicitly in the Trinity.

Obj. 2. Further, Our Lord said (John xvii. 5, 0): Father,
. . . I have manifested Thy name to men, which words
Augustine expounds {Tract, cvi.) as follows: Not the name by
which Thou art called God, but the name whereby Thou art
called My Father, and further on he adds: /;/ that He made
this world, God is known to all nations; in that He is not to

Q. 2. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 46

be worsJiipped together with false gods, ' God is known in
Judea '; but, in that He is the Father of this Christ, through
Whom He takes away the sin of the world, He now makes
known to men this name of His, which hitherto they knew not.
Therefore before the coming of Christ it was not known
that Paternity and Filiation were in the Godhead: and so
the Trinity was not believed explicitly.

Obj. 3. Further, That which we are bound to believe
explicitly of God is the object of heavenly happiness. Now
the object of heavenly happiness is the sovereign good,
which can be understood to be in God, without any distinc-
tion of Persons. Therefore it was not necessary to believe
explicitly in the Trinity.

On the contrary, In the Old Testament the Trinity of
Persons is expressed in many ways ; thus at the very out-
set of Genesis it is written in manifestation of the Trinity:
Let Us make man to Our image and likeness (Gen. i. 26).
Therefore from the very beginning it was necessary for
salvation to believe in the Trinity.

/ answer that. It is impossible to believe explicitly in the
mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the
mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took
flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of
the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the
Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery
of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but
implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple,
so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And con-
sequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were
bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and
all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on
them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matth.
xxviii. 19: Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son^and'ofthe Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. i. Explicit faith in those two things was
necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not
sufficient at all times and for all people.

Reply Obj. 2. Before Christ's coming, faith in the Trinity

47 THE ACT OF FAFfH Q. 2. Art 9

lay hidden in the faith of the learned, but through Christ
and the apostles it was shown to the world.

Reply Ohj. 3. God's sovereign goodness as we understand
it now through its effects, can be understood without the
Trinity of Persons: but as understood in itself, and as seen
by the Blessed, it cannot be understood without the Trinity
of Persons. Moreover the mission of the Divine Persons
brings us to heavenly happiness.

Ninth Article,
whether to believe is meritorious ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that to believe is not meritorious. For
the principle of all merit is charity, as stated above (T-IL,
O. CXI v., A. 4). Now faith, like nature, is a preamble to
charity. Therefore, just as an act of nature is not meri-
torious, since we do not merit by our natural gifts, so neither
is an act of faith.

Obj. 2. Further, Belief is a mean between opinion and
scientific knowledge or the consideration of things scien-
tifically known.* Now the considerations of science are not
meritorious, nor on the other hand is opinion. Therefore
belief is not meritorious.

Obj. 3. Further, He who assents to a point of faith, either
has a sufiicient motive for believing, or he has not. If he
has a sufficient motive for his belief, this does not seem to
imply any merit on his part, since he is no longer free to
believe or not to believe: whereas if he has not a sufficient
motive for believing, this is a mark of levity, according to
Ecclus. xix. 4: He that is hasty to give credit, is light of heart,
so that, seemingly, he gains no merit thereby. Therefore to
believe is by no means meritorious.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. xi. ^^) that the saints
by faith . . . obtained promises, which would not he the C3.se
if they did not merit by believing. Therefore to believe is
meritorious.

* Cf. footnote on p. 10.

Q. 2. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOCilCA " 48

/ answer that, As stated above (I. -I I., Q. CXIV., AA. 3, 4),
our actions are meritorious in so far as they proceed from the
free-will moved with grace by (iod. Therefore every human
act proceeding from the free-will, if it be referred to God,
can be meritorious. Now the act of believing is an act of
the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command
of the will moved by the grace of God, so that it is subject
to the free-will in relation to God ; and consequently the
act of faith can be meritorious.

Reply Obj. i. Nature is compared to charity which is the
principle of merit, as matter to form: whereas faith is com-
pared to charity as the disposition which precedes the ulti-
mate form. Now it is evident that the subject or the matter
cannot act save by virtue of the form, nor can a preceding
disposition, before the advent of the form: but after the
advent of the form, both the subject and the preceding dis-
position act by virtue of the form, which is the chief prin-
ciple of action, even as the heat of lire acts by virtue of the
substantial form of fire. Accordingly neither nature nor
faith can, without charity, produce a meritorious act; but,
when accompanied by charity, the act of faith is made
meritorious thereby, even as an act of nature, and a natural
act of the free-will.

Reply Obj. 2. Two things may be considered in science;
namely, the scientist's assent to a scientific faxt, and his
consideration of that fact. Now the assent of science is
not subject to free-will, because the scientist is obliged to
assent by the force of the demonstration, wherefore scien-
tific assent is not meritorious. But the actual consideration
of what a man knows scientifically is subject to his free-will
for it is in his power to consider or not to consider. Hence
scientific consideration may be meritorious if it be referred
to the end of charity, i.e. to the honour of God or the good
of our neighbour. On the other hand, in the case of faith,
both these things are subject to the free-will, so that in both
respects the act of faith can be meritorious: whereas in the
case of opinion, there is no firm assent, since it is weak and
infirm, as the Philosopher observes (Poster, i.), so that it

49 THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 10

does not seem to proceed from a perfect act of the will : and
for this reason, as regards the assent, it does not appear to
be very meritorious, though it can be as regards the actual
consideration.

Reply Ohj. 3. The believer has sufficient motive for be-
lieving, for he is moved by the authority of Divine teaching
confirmed by miracles, and, what is more, by the inward
instinct of the Divine invitation : hence he does not believe
lightly. He has not, however, sufficient reason for scien-
tific knowledge, hence he does not lose the merit.

Tenth Article.

whether reasons in support of what we believe
lessen the merit of faith ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection I. It seems that reasons in support of what we
believe lessen the merit of faith. For Gregory says {Horn.
xxvi. in Ev.) that there is no merit in believing what is
shown by reason. If, therefore, human reason provides
sufficient proof, the merit of faith is altogether taken away.
Therefore it seems that any kind of human reasoning in
support of matters of faith, diminishes the merit of
believing.

Obj. 2. Further, Whatever lessens the measure of virtue,
lessens the amount of merit, since happiness is the reward of
virtue, as the Philosopher states [Ethic, i.). Now human
reasoning seems to diminish the measure of the virtue of
faith, since it is essential to faith to be about the
unseen, as stated above (Q. I., AA. 4, 5). Now the more
a thing is supported by reasons the less is it unseen.
Therefore human reasons in support of matters of faith
diminish the merit of faith.

Obj. 3. Further, Contrary things have contrary causes.
Now an inducement in opposition to faith increases the merit
of faith — whether it consist in persecution inflicted by one
who endeavours to force a man to renounce his faith, or in

u. ii. I 4

Q. 2. Art. io THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 50

an argument persuading him to do so. Therefore reasons
in support of faith diminish the merit of faith.

On the contrary, It is written (i Pet. iii. 15): Being ready
always to satisfy every one that askethyou a reason of that faith'*'
and hope which is in you. Now the Apostle would not give
this advice, if it would imply a diminution in the merit of
faith. Therefore reason does not diminish the merit of faith.
/ answer that, As stated above (A. 9), the act of faith can
be meritorious, in so far as it is subject to the will, not only
as to the use, but also as to the assent. Now human reason
in support of what we believe, may stand in a twofold re-
lation to the will of the believer. — First, as preceding the
act of the will; as, for instance, when a man either has not
the will, or not a prompt will, to believe, unless he be moved
by human reasons : and in this way human reason diminishes
the merit of faith. In this sense it has been said above
(I. -II., 0. XXIV., A. 3, adi: O. LXXVII., A. 6, ad 2) that,
in moral virtues, a passion which precedes choice makes the
virtuous act less praiseworthy. For just as a man ought
to perform acts of moral virtue, on account of the judgment
of his reason, and not on account of a passion, so ought he
/ to believe matters of faith, not on account of human reason,
\ but on account of the Divine authority. — Secondly, human
reasons may be consequent to the will of the believer. For
when a man's will is ready to believe, he loves the truth he
believes, he thinks out and takes to heart whatever reasons
, he can find in support thereof; and in this way, human reason
does not exclude the merit of faith, but is a sign of greater
merit. Thus again, in moral virtues, a consequent passion,
is the sign of a more prompt will, as stated above (I. -II.,
O. XXIV., A. 3 ad i). We have an indication of this in
the words of the Samaritans to the woman, who is a type of
human reason : We now believe, not for thy saying (John iv. 42).
Reply Obj. i. Gregory is referring to the case of a man
who has no will to believe what is of faith, unless he be in-
duced by reasons. But when a man has the will to believe
what is of faith, on the authority of God alone, although he
* Viilg., — Of that hope ivhich is in you.

51 ^ THE ACT OF FAITH Q. 2. Art. 10

may have reasons in demonstration of some of them, e.g. of
the existence of God, the merit of his faith is not, for that
reason, lost or diminished.

Reply Obj. 2. The reasons which are brought forward in
support of the authority of faith, are not demonstrations
which can bring intellectual vision to the human intellect,
wherefore they do not cease to be unseen. But they
remove obstacles to faith, by showing that what faith pro-
poses is not impossible; wherefore such reasons do not
diminish the merit or the measure of faith. On the other
hand, though demonstrative reasons in support of the pre-
ambles of faith,* but not of the articles of faith, diminish the
measure of faith, since they make the thing believed to be
seen, yet they do not diminish the measure of charity,
which makes the will ready to believe them, even if they
were unseen ; and so the measure of merit is not
diminished.

Reply Obj. 3. Whatever is in opposition to faith, whether
it consist in a man's thoughts, or in outward persecution,
increases the merit of faith, in so far as the will is shown
to be more prompt and firm in believing. Hence the martyrs
had more merit of faith, through not renouncing faith on
account of persecution ; and even the w^ise have greater merit
of faith, through not renouncing their faith on account of
the reasons brought forward by philosophers or heretics in
opposition to faith. On the other hand things that arc
favourable to faith, do not always diminish the promptness
of the will to believe, and therefore they do not always
diminish the merit of faith.

* I lie l^coninc Iiditioii reads, — in support of mailers oj tdilh
ivhirh (U'i', houK'vcr, preambles to the articles of faith, diminish, etc.

QUESTION III.

OF THE OUTWARD ACT OF FAITH.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider the outward act, viz. the confes-
sion of faith: under which head there are two points of
inquiry: (i) Whether confession is an act of faith ?
(2) Whether confession of faith is necessary for salvation ?

First Article,
whether confession is an act of faith ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that confession is not an act of faith.
For the same act does not belong to different virtues. Now
confession belongs to penance of which it is a part. There-
fore it is not an act of faith.

Obj. 2. Further, Man is sometimes deterred by fear or
some kind of confusion, from confessing his faith: where-
fore the Apostle (Eph. vi. 19) asks for prayers that it may
be granted him with confidence, to make known the mystery
of the gospel. Now it belongs to fortitude, which moderates
daring and fear, not to be deterred from doing good on
account of confusion or fear. Therefore it seems that
confession is not an act of faith, but rather of fortitude or
constancy.

Obj. 3. Further, Just as the ardour of faith makes one
confess one's faith outwardly, so does it make one do other
external good works, for it is written (Gal. v. 6) that faith
, . . worketh by charity. But other external works are not

52

53 THE OUTWARD ACT OF FAITH Q 3. Art. 1

reckoned acts of faith. Therefore neither is confession an
act of faith.

On the contrary, A gloss explains the words of 2 Thess.
i. II, and the work of faith in power as referring to confession
which is a work proper to faith.

I answer that, Outward actions belong properly to the
virtue to whose end they are specifically referred: thus
fasting is referred specifically to the end of abstinence,
which is to tame the flesh, and consequently it is an act
of abstinence.

Now confession of those things that are of faith, is re-
ferred specifically as to its end, to that which concerns
faith, according to 2 Cor. iv. 13: Having the same spirit of
faith, . . . we believe, and therefore we speak also. For the
outward utterance is intended to signify the inward thought.
Wherefore, just as the inward thought of matters of faith
is properly an act of faith, so too is the outward confession
of them.

Reply Obj. 1. A threefold confession is commended by
the Scriptures. One is the confession of matters of faith,
and this is a proper act of faith, since it is referred to the
end of faith, as stated above. Another is the confession of
thanksgiving or praise, and this is an act of latria, for its
purpose is to give outward honour to God, which is the
end of latria. The third is the confession of sins, which is
ordained to the blotting out of sins, which is the end of
penance, to which virtue it therefore belongs.

Reply Obj. 2. That which removes an obstacle is not a
direct, but an indirect, cause, as the Philosopher proves
(Phys. viii.). Hence fortitude which removes an obstacle
to the confession of faith, viz. fear or shame, is not the
proper and direct cause of confession, but an indirect cause
so to speak.

Reply Obj. 3. Inward faith, with the aid of charity, causes
all outward acts of virtue, by means of the other virtues,
commanding, but not eliciting them; whereas it produces
the act of confession as its proper act, without the help of
any other virtue.

Q. 3- Aim. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 54

Second Article.

whether confession of faith is necessary for

salvation ?

]\'c proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that confession of faith is not neces-
sary for salvation. For, seemingly, a thing is sufficient for
salvation, if it is a means of attaining the end of virtue.
Now the proper end of faith is the union of the human mind
with Divine truth, and this can be realized without any
outward confession. Therefore confession of faith is not
necessary for salvation.

Obj. 2. Further, By outward confession of faith, a man
reveals his faith to another man. But this is unnecessary
save for those who have to instruct others in the faith.
Therefore it seems that the simple folk are not bound
to confess the faith.

Obj. 3. Further, Whatever may tend to scandalize and
disturb others, is not necessary for salvation, for the Apostle
says (i Cor. x. 32): Be without offence to the Jews and to the
gentiles, and to the Church of God. Now confession of the
faith sometimes causes a disturbance among unbelievers.
Therefore it is not necessary for salvation.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. x. 10) : With the
heart we believe unto justice ; but with the mouth, confession
is made unto salvation.

I answer that, Things that are necessary for salvation
come under the precepts of the Divine law. Now since
confession of faith is something affirmativ^e, it can only fall
under an affirmative precept. Hence its necessity for salvation
depends on how it falls under an affirmative precept of the
Divine law. Now affirmative precepts as stated above (L-IT,
O. LXXL, A. 5, a^ 3: 0. LXXXVIIL, A. i, ad 2) do not bind
tor always, although they are always binding ; but they bind
as to place and time according to other due circumstances,
in respect of which human acts have to be regulated in
order to be acts of virtue.

55 THE OUTWARD ACT OF FAITH Q. 3- Art. 2

Thus then it is not necessary for salvation to confess one's
faith at all times and in all places, but in certain places and
at certain times, when, namely, by omitting to do so, we would
deprive God of due honour, or our neighbour of a service that
we ought to render him : for instance, if a man, on being asked
about his faith, were to remain silent, so as to make people
believe either that he is without faith, or that the faith is
false, or so as to turn others away from the faith ; for in such
cases as these, confession of faith is necessary for salvation.

Reply Ohj. i. The end of faith, even as of the other virtues,
must be referred to the end of charity, which is the love of
God and our neighbour. Consequently when God's honour
and our neighbour's good demand, man should not be
contented with being imited by faith to (iod's truth, but
ought to confess his faith outwardly.

Reply Ohj. 2. In cases of necessity where faith is in danger,
every one is bound to proclaim his faith to others, either to
give good example and encouragement to the rest of the
faithful, or to check the attacks of unbelievers: but at other
times it is not the duty of all the faithful to instruct others
in the faith.

Reply Ohj. 3. There is nothing commendable in making
a public confession of one's faith, if it cause a disturbance
among unbelievers, without any profit either to the faith
or to the faithful. Hence Our Lord said (Matth. vii. 6):
Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine , . . lest turning upon yon, they tear you. Yet,
if there is hope of profit to the faith, or if there be urgency,
a man should disregard the disturbance of unbelievers, and
confess his faith in public. Hence it is written (Matth
XV. 12) that when the disciples had said to Our Lord that
the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized,
He answered: Let them alone, they are hlind, and leaders 0
the hlind.

QUESTION IV.

OF THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH.

{In Eight Articles.)

We must now consider the virtue itself of faith, and, in the
first place, faith itself; secondly, those who have faith;
thirdly, the cause of faith; fourthly, its effects.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry :
(i) What is faith ? (2) In what power of the soul does it
reside ? (3) Whether its form is charity ? (4) Whether
living (formata) faith and lifeless (informis) faith are one
identically ? (5) Whether faith is a virtue ? (6) Whether
it is one virtue ? (7) Of its relation to the other virtues.
(8) Of its certitude as compared with the certitude of the
intellectual virtues.

First Article.

whether this is a fitting definition of faith : * faith
is the substance of things to be hoped for, the
evidence of things that appear not ' ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the Apostle gives an unfitting
definition of faith (Heb. xi. i) when he says: Faith is
the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things
that appear not. For no quality is a substance: whereas
faith is a quality, since it is a theological virtue, as stated
above (I.-IL, Q. LXII., A. 3). Therefore it is not a
substance.

Obj. 2. Further, Different virtues have different objects.
Kcw things to be hoped for are the object of hope. There-

56

57 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4- Art. i

fore they should not be included in a definition of faith, as
though they were its object.

Obj. 3. Further, Faith is perfected by charity rather than
by hope, since charity is the form of faith, as we shall state
further on (A. 3). Therefore the definition of faith should
have included the thing to be loved rather than the thing to
be hoped for.

Obj. 4. Further, The same thing should not be placed in
different genera. Now substance and evidence are different
genera, and neither is subalternate to the other. There-
fore it is unfitting to state that faith is both substance and
evidence.

Obj. 5. Further, Evidence manifests the truth of the
matter for which it is adduced. Now a thing is said
to be apparent when its truth is already manifest. There-
fore it seems to imply a contradiction to speak of evidence
of things that appear not : and so faith is unfittingly
defined.

On the contrary, The authority of the Apostle suffices.
/ answer that, Though some say that the above words
of the Apostle are not a definition of faith, yet if
we consider the matter aright, this definition overlooks
none of the points in reference to which faith can be defined,
albeit the words themselves are not arranged in the form
of a definition, just as the philosophers touch on the prin-
ciples of the syllogism, without employing the syllogistic
form.

In order to make this clear, we must observe that since
habits are known by their acts, and acts by their objects,
faith, being a habit, should be defined by its proper act in
relation to its proper object. Now the act of faith is to be-
lieve, as stated above (0. II., AA. 2, 3), which is an act of the
intellect determinate to one object by the will's command.
Hence an act of faith is related both to the object of the will,
i.e. to the good and the end, and to the object of the intellect,
i.e. to the true. And since faith, through being a theological
virtue, as stated above (I. -II., Q. LXII., A. 2), has one same
thing for object and end, its object and end must, of necessity,

y. 4. Akt. I THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 58

be in proportion to one another. Now it has been aheady
stated (O. I., AA. i, 4) that the object of faith is the First
Truth, as unseen, and whatever we hold on account thereof :
so that it must needs be under the aspect of something
unseen that the First Truth is the end of the act of
faith, which aspect is that of a thing hoped for, accord-
ing to the Apostle (Rom. viii. 25): We hope for that which
we see not : because to see the truth is to possess it. Now
one hopes not for what one has already, but for what one
has not, as stated above (L-IL, Q. LXVIL, A. 4). Accord-
ingly the relation of the act of faith to its end which is the
object of the will, is indicated by the words: Faith 7S the
substance of things to he hoped for. For we are wont to call
by the name of substance, the first beginning of a thing,
especially w^hen the whole subsequent thing is virtually con-
tained in the first beginning; for instance, we might say
that the first self-evident principles are the substance of
science, because, to wit, these principles are in us the first
beginnings of science, the whole of which is itself contained
in them virtually. In this way then faith is ^aid to be the
substance of things to be hoped for, for the reason that in us
the first beginning of things to be hoped for is brought about
by the assent of faith, which contains virtually all things to
be hoped for. Because we hope to be made happy through
seeing the unveiled truth to which our faith cleaves,
as was made evident when we were speaking of happiness
(I.-II., g. III., A. 8: Q. IV., A. 3).

The relationship of the act of faith to the object of the
intellect, considered as the object of faith, is indicated by
the words, evidence of things that appear not, where evidence
is taken for the result of evidence. For evidence induces the
intellect to adhere to a truth, wherefore the firm adhesion
of the intellect to the non-apparent truth of faith is called
evidence here. Hence another reading has conviction, because,
to wit, the intellect of the believer is convinced by Divine
authority, so as to assent to what it sees not. Accordingly
if anyone would reduce the foregoing words to the form of
a definition, he may say that faith is a habit of the mind

59 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH o. 4- Am. i

whereby eternal life is begun in us, making the intellect assent
to what is non-apparent.

In this way faith is distinguished from all other things
pertaining to the intellect. For when we describe it as
evidence, we distinguish it from opinion, suspicion and doubt,
which do not make the intellect adhere to anything firmly ;
when we go on to say, of things that appear not, we distinguish
it from science and understanding, the object of which is
something apparent; and when we say that it is the substance
of things to be hoped for, we distinguish the virtue of faith
from faith commonly so called, which has no reference to
the beatitude we hope for.

Whatever other definitions are given of faith, are explana-
tions of this one given by the Apostle. For when Augustine
says (Tract, xl. in Joan.: QQ. Evang. ii.) \\\?X faith is a virtue
whereby ive believe what we do not see, and when Damascene
says [l)e Fide Orthod. iv.) that faith is an assent without
research, and when others say ihdii faith is that certainty of
the mind about absent things which surpasses opinion but falls
short of science, these all amount to the same as the Apostle's
words: Evidence of things that appear not : and when Diony-
sius says (Div. Nom. vii.) that faith is the solid foundation
of the believer, establishing him in the truth, and showing forth
the truth in him, comes to the same as stibstance of things to
be hoped for.

Reply Obj. i. Substance, here, dots not stand for the
supreme genus condivided with the other genera, but for
that likeness to substance which is found in each genus,
inasmuch as the first thing in a genus contains the others
virtually and is said to be the substance thereof.

Reply Obj. 2. Since faith pertains to the intellect as
commanded by the will, it must needs be directed, as to its
end, to the objects of those virtues which perfect the will,
among which is hope, as we shall prove further on (O. XVHI.,
A. i). For this reason the definition of faith includes the
object of hope.

Reply Obj. 3. Love may be of the seen and of the unseen,
of the present and of the absent. Consecjuently a thing to be

Q. 4. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 60

loved is not so adapted to faith, as a thing to be hoped for,
since hope is ahvays of the absent and the unseen.

Reply Ohj. 4. Substance and evidence as included in the
definition of faith, do not denote various genera of faith, nor
different acts, but different relationships of one act to
different objects, as is clear from what has been said.

Reply Obj. 5. Evidence taken from the proper principles
of a thing, make it apparent, whereas evidence taken from
Divine authority does not make a thing apparent in itself,
and such is the evidence referred to in the definition of
faith.

Second Article,
whether faith resides in the intellect ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — •

Objection i. It seems that faith does not reside in the
intellect. For Augustine says (De Prcedest. Sanct. v.) that
faith depends on the believer^s will. Now the will is a power
distinct from the intellect. Therefore faith does not reside
in the intellect.

Obj. 2. Further, The assent of faith to believe anything,
proceeds from the will obeying God. Therefore it seems
that faith owes all its praise to obedience. Now obedience
is in the will. Therefore faith is in the will, and not in the
intellect.

Obj. 3. Further, The intellect is either speculative or
practical. Now faith is not in the speculative intellect,
since this is not concerned with things to be sought or
avoided, as stated in De Anima iii., so that it is not a
principle of operation, whereas faith . . . worketh by charity
(Gal. V. 6). Likewise, neither is it in the practical intellect,
the object of which is some true, contingent thing, that can
be made or done. For the object of faith is the Eternal
Truth, as was shown above (Q. I., A. i). Therefore faith
does not reside in the intellect.

On the contrary, Faith is succeeded by the heavenly
vision, according to i Cor. xiii. 12 : We see now through a

6i THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4- Art. 2

glass in a dark manner ; hut then face to face. Now vision
is in the intellect. Therefore faith is hkewise.

/ answer that, Since faith is a virtue, its act must needs
be perfect. Now, for the perfection of an act proceeding
from two active principles, each of these principles must be
perfect : for it is not possible for a thing to be sawn well,
unless the sawyer possess the art, and the saw be well fitted
for sawing. Now, in a power of the soul, which is related
to opposite objects, a disposition to act well is a habit, as
stated above (I. -II., Q. XLIX., A. 4, ad i, 2, 3). Wherefore
an act that proceeds from two such powers must be perfected
by a habit residing in each of them. Again, it has been
stated above (Q. II., AA. i, 2) that to believe is an act of
the intellect, inasmuch as the will moves it to assent. And
this act proceeds from the will and the intellect, both of
which have a natural aptitude to be perfected in this way.
Consequently, if the act of faith is to be perfect, there needs
to be a habit in the will as well as in the intellect : even as
there needs to be the habit of prudence in the reason,
besides the habit of temperance in the concupiscible faculty,
in order that the act of that faculty be perfect. Now, to
believe is immediately an act of the intellect, because the
object of that act is the true, which pertains properly to
the intellect. Consequently faith, which is the proper
principle of that act, must needs reside in the intellect.

Reply Ohj. i. Augustine takes faith for the act of faith,
which is described as depending on the believer's will, in
so far as his intellect assents to matters of faith at the
command of the will.

Reply Obj. 2. Not only does the will need to be ready to
obey, but also the intellect needs to be well disposed to
follow the command of the will, even as the concupiscible
faculty needs to be well disposed in order to follow the
command of reason; hence there needs to be a habit of
virtue not only in the commanding will but also in the
assenting intellect.

Reply Ohj. 3. Faith resides in the speculative intellect
as evidenced by its object. But since this object, which is

Q. 4. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 62

the Eirst Truth, is the end of all our desires and actions,
as Augustine proves {De Trin. i.), it follows that faith
worketh by charity just as the speculative intellect becomes
practical by extension {De Anima iii.).

Third Aktklk.
whether charity is the form of faith ?

We proceed thus to the Third A rticle : —

Objection 1. It seems that charity is not the form of
faith. For each thing derives its species from its form.
When, therefore, two things are opposite members of a
division, one cannot be the form of the other. Now faith
and charity are stated to be opposite members of a division^
as different species of virtue (i Cor. xiii. 13). Therefore
charity is not the form of faith.

Obj. 2. Further, A form and the thing of which it is the
form are in one subject, since together they form one
simply. Now faith is in the intellect, while charity is m
the will. Therefore charity is not the form of faith.

Obj. 3. Further, The form of a thing is a principle thereof.
Now obedience, rather than charity, seems to be the prin-
ciple of believing, on the part of the will, according to
Rom. i. 5: For obedience to the faith in all nations. There-
fore obedience rather than charity, is the form of faith.

On the contrary, Each thing works through its form.
Now faith works through charity. Therefore the love of
charity is the form of faith.

/ answer that, As appears from what has been said above
(L-IL, O. L, A. 3: Q. XVIIL, A. 6), voluntary acts take
their species from their end which is the will's object.
Now that which gives a thing its species, is after the manner
of a form in natural things. Wherefore the form of any
voluntary act is, in a manner, the end to which that act is
directed, both because it takes its species therefrom, and
because the mode of an action should correspond pro-
portionately to the end. Now it is evident from what has
been said (A. i), that the act of faith is directed to the

63 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4. Art. 4

object of the will, i.e. the good, as to its end: and this
good which is the end of faith, viz. the Divine Good, is the
proper object of charity. Therefore charity is called the
form of faith, in so far as the act of faith is perfected and
formed by charity.

Reply Obj. i. Charity is called the form of faith because
it quickens the act of faith. Now nothing hinders one
act from being quickened by different habits, so as to be
reduced to various species in a certain order, as stated above
(L-IL, O. XVIIL, AA. 6, 7: Q. LXL, A. 2) when we were
treating of human acts in general.

Reply Obj. 2. This objection is true of an intrinsic form.
But it is not thus that charity is the form of faith, but in
the sense that it quickens the act of faith, as explained
above.

Reply Obj. 3. Even obedience, and hope likewise, and
whatever 'other virtue might precede the act of faith, is
quickened by charity, as we shall show further on
(C). XXIII., A. 8), and consequently charity is spoken
of as the form of faith.

Fourth Article.

whether lifeless faith can become living, or
living faith, lifeless ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that lifeless faith does not become
living, or living faith lifeless. For, according to i Cor.
xiii. 10, when that which is perfect is come, that which is
in part shall be done away. Now lifeless faith is im-
perfect in comparison with living faith. Therefore when
living faith comes, lifeless faith is done away, so that
they are not one identical habit.

Obj. 2. Further, A dead thing does not become a living
thing. Now lifeless faith is dead, according to James ii. 20:
Faith xvithout works is dead. Therefore lifeless faith cannot
become living.

Obj. 3. Further. God's grace, by its advent, has no less

Q. 4. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 64

effect in a believer than in an unbeliever. Now by coming
to an unbeliever it causes the habit of faith. Therefore
when it comes to a believer, who hitherto had the habit of
lifeless faith, it causes another habit of faith in him.

Ohj. 4. Further, As Boethius says, accidents cannot he
altered. Now faith is an accident. Therefore the same faith
cannot be at one time living, and at another, lifeless.

On the contrary, A gloss on the words. Faith without works
is dead (James ii. 20) adds, by which it lives once more.
Therefore faith which was lifeless and without form hitherto,
becomes formed and living.

/ answer that, There have been various opinions on this
question. For some have said that living and lifeless
faith are distinct habits, but that w^hen living faith comes,
lifeless faith is done away, and that, in like manner,
when a man sins mortally after having living faith, a new
habit of lifeless faith is infused into him by God. But it
seems unfitting that grace should deprive man of a gift of
God by coming to him, and that a gift of God should be
infused into man, on account of a mortal sin.

Consequently others have said that living and lifeless
faith are indeed distinct habits, but that, all the same,
when living faith comes the habit of lifeless faith is not
taken away, and that it remains together with the habit of
living faith in the same subject. Yet again it seems un-
reasonable that the habit of lifeless faith should remain
inactive in a person having living faith.

We must therefore hold differently that living and life-
less faith are one and the same habit. The reason is that
a habit is differentiated by that which directly pertains to
that habit. Now since faith is a perfection of the intellect,
that pertains directly to faith, which pertains to the intellect.
Again, what pertains to the will, does not pertain directly
to faith, so as to be able to differentiate the habit of faith.
But the distinction of living from lifeless faith is in
respect of something pertaining to the will, i.e. charity,
and not in respect of something pertaining to the intellect.
Therefore living and lifeless faith are not distinct habits.

65 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4. Art. 4

Reply Obj. i. The saying of the Apostle refers to those
imperfect things from which imperfection is inseparable,
for then, when the perfect comes the imperfect must needs
be done away. Thus with the advent of clear vision, faith
is done away, because it is essentially of the things that appear
not. When, however, imperfection is not inseparable
from the imperfect thing, the same identical thing which
was imperfect becomes perfect. Thus childhood is not
essential to man, and consequently the same identical
subject who was a child, becomes a man. Now lifelessness
is not essential to faith, but is accidental thereto, as stated
above. Therefore lifeless faith itself becomes living.

Reply Obj. 2. That which makes an animal live is in-
separable from an animal, because it is its substantial
form, viz. the soul: consequently a dead thing cannot
become a living thing, and a living and a dead thing differ
specifically. On the other hand, that which gives faith
its form, or makes it live, is not essential to faith. Hence
there is no comparison.

Reply Obj. 3. Grace causes faith not only when faith
begins anew to be in a man, but also as long as faith lasts.
For it has been said above (P. I., Q. CIV., A. i: I. -II.,
Q. CIX., A. 9), that God is always working man's justifica-
tion, even as the sun is always lighting up the air. Hence
grace is not less effective when it comes to a believer than
when it comes to an unbeliever: since it causes faith in
both, in the former by confirming and perfecting it, in the
latter by creating it anew.

We might also reply that it is accidental, namely, on
account of the disposition of the subject, that grace does not
cause faith in one who has it already: just as, on the other
hand, a second mortal sin does not take away grace from
one who has already lost it through a previous mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 4. When living faith becomes lifeless, faith
is not changed, but it*^ subject, the soul, which at one
time has faith without charity, and at another time, with
harity.

II. ii. I s

Q. 4. Art. 5 [HE " SUArMA TllEOLOGJC A " 66

Fifth Article,
whether faith is a virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that faith is not a virtue. For
virtue is directed to the good, since it is virtue that makes
its subject good, as the Philosopher states (Ethic, ii.). But
faith is directed to the true. 'Iherefore faith is not a virtue.

Obj. 2. Further, Infused virtue is more perfect than
acquired virtue. Now faith, on account of its imperfection,
is not placed among the acquired intellectual virtues, as
the Philosopher states [Ethic, vi.). Much less, therefore,
can it be considered an infused virtue.

Obj. 3. Further, Living and lifeless faith are of the same
species, as stated above (A. 4). Now lifeless faith is not
a virtue, since it is not connected with the other virtues.
Therefore neither is living faith a virtue.

Obj. 4. Further, The gratuitous graces and the fruits
are distinct from the virtues. But faith is numbered
among the gratuitous graces (i Cor. xii. 9) and likewise
among the fruits (Gal. v. 23). Therefore faith is not a
virtue.

On the contrary, Man is justified by the virtues, since
justice is all virtue as the Philosopher states [Ethic, v.).
Now man is justified by faith according to Rom. v. i:
Being justified therefore by faith let us have peace, etc. There-
fore faith is a virtue.

/ answer that, As shown above, it is by human virtue
that human acts are rendered good; hence, any habit that
is always the principle of a good act, may be called a human
virtue. Such a habit is living faith. For since to believe
is an act of the intellect assenting to the truth at the com-
mand of the will, two things are required that this act may
be perfect : one of which is that the intellect should infallibly
tend to its object, which is the true; while the other is
that the will should be infalliblv directed to the last end,
on account of which it assents to the true : and both of

67 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4- Art. 5

these are to be found in the act of living faith. For it
belongs to the very essence of faith that the intellect should
ever tend to the true, since nothing false can be the object
of faith, as proved above (Q. I., A. 3): while the effect of
charity, which is the form of faith, is that the soul ever has
its will directed to a good end. Therefore living faith is a
virtue.

On the other hand, lifeless faith is not a virtue, because,
though the act of lifeless faith is duly perfect on the part
of the intellect, it has not its due perfection as regards the
will: just as if temperance be in the concupiscible, without
prudence being in the rational part, temperance is not a
virtue, as stated above (I. -II., 0. LXV., A. i), because
the act of temperance requires both an act of reason,
and an act of the concupiscible faculty, even as the act
of faith requires an act of the will, and an act of the
intellect.

Reply Obj. I. The truth is itself the good of the intellect,
since it is its perfection : and consequently faith has a relation
to some good in so far as it directs the intellect to the true.
Furthermore, it has a relation to the good considered as the
object of the will, inasmuch as it is formed by charity.

Reply Obj. 2. The faith of which the Philosopher speaks is
based on human reasoning in a conclusion which does not
follow, of necessity, from its premisses; and which is subject
to be false: hence suchlike faith is not a virtue. On the
other hand, the faith of which we are speaking is based on
the Divine Truth, which is infallible, and consequently
its object cannot be anything false ; so that faith of this
kind can be a virtue.

Reply Obj. 3. Living and lifeless faith do not differ
specifically, as though they belonged to different species.
But they differ as perfect and imperfect within the same
species. Hence lifeless faith, being imperfect, does not
satisfy the conditions of a perfect virtue, for virtue is a
kind of perfection (Phys. vii.).

Reply Obj. 4. Some say that faith which is numbered
among the gratuitous graces is lifeless faith. But this

Q. 4. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 68

is said without reason, since the gratuitous graces, which
are mentioned in that passage, are not common to all^
the members of the Church: wherefore the Apostle says:
There are diversities of graces, and again: To one is given
this grace and to another that. Now lifeless faith is
common to all the members of the Church, because its
lifelessness is not part of its substance, if we consider it
as a gratuitous gift. We must, therefore, say that in that
passage, faith denotes a certain excellency of faith, for
instance, constancy in faith, according to a gloss, or the
word of faith.

Faith is numbered among the fruits, in so far as it gives
a certain pleasure in its act by reason of its certainty,
wherefore the gloss on the fifth chapter to the Galatians,
where the fruits are enumerated, explains faith as being
certainty about the unseen.

Sixth Article,
whether faith is one virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that faith is not one. For just as
faith is a gift of God according to Eph. ii. 8, so also wisdom
and knowledge are numbered among God's gifts according
to Isa. xi. 2. Now wisdom and knowledge differ in this,
that wisdom is about eternal things, and knowledge about
temporal things, as Augustine states {De Trin. xii.). Since,
then, faith is about eternal things, and also about some
temporal things, it seems that faith is not one virtue, but
divided into several parts.

Gbj. 2. Further, Confession is an act of faith, as stated
above (Q. III., A. i). Now confession of faith is not one and
the same for all: since what we confess as past, the fathers
of old confessed as yet to come, as appears from Isa. vii.
14: Behold a virgin shall conceive. Therefore faith is not
one.

Obj. 3. Further, Faith is common to all believers in Christ.

69 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4. Art. 6

But one accident cannot be in many subjects. Therefore
all cannot have one faith.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. iv. 5) : One Lord,
one faith.

I answer that, If we take faith as a habit, we can consider
it in two ways. First on the part of the object, and thus
there is one faith. Because the formal object of faith is
the First Truth, by adhering to which we believe whatever
is contained in the faith. Secondly, on the part of the
subject, and thus faith is differentiated according as it is
in various subjects. Now it is evident that faith, just as
any other habit, takes its species from the formal aspect of
its object, but is individualized by its subject. Hence if
we take faith for the habit whereby we believe, it is one
specifically, but differs numerically according to its various
subjects.

If, on the other hand, we take faith for that which is
believed, then, again, there is one faith, since what is be-
lieved by all is one same thing: for though the things
believed, which all agree in believing, be diverse from one
another, yet they are all reduced to one.

Reply Ohj. i. Temporal matters which are proposed to
be believed, do not belong to the object of faith, except
in relation to something eternal, viz. the First Truth, as
stated above (Q. I., A. i). Hence there is one faith of things
both temporal and eternal. It is different with wisdom
and knowledge, which consider temporal and eternal matters
under their respective aspects.

Reply Ohj. 2. This difference of past and future arises, not
from any difference in the thing believed, but from the
different relationships of believers to the one thing believed,
as also we have mentioned above (I. -II., Q. CHI., A. 4:
Q. CVIL, A. I, ad I).

Reply Ohj. 3. This objection considers numerical diversity
of faith.

Q. 4. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOI.OGICA " 70

Seventh Article,
whether faith is the first of the virtues ?

Wc proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that faith is not the first of the
virtues. For a gloss on Luke xii. 4, / say to you My friends,
says that fortitude is the foundation of faith. Now the
foundation precedes that which is founded thereon. There-
fore faith is not the first of the virtues.

Obj. 2. Further, A gloss on Psalm xxxvi., Be not emulous,
says that hope leads on to faith. Now hope is a virtue, as
we shall state further on (Q. XVII., A. i). Therefore faith
is not the first of the virtues.

Obj. 3. Further, It was stated above (A. 2) that the in-
tellect of the believer is moved, out of obedience to God,
to assent to matters of faith. Now obedience also is a
virtue. Therefore faith is not the first virtue.

Obj. 4. Further, Not lifeless but living faith is the founda-
tion, as a gloss remarks on i Cor. iii. 11. Now faith is
formed by charity, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore
it is owing to charity that faith is the foundation : so that
charity is the foundation yet more than faith is (for the
foundation is the first part of a building) and consequently
it seems to precede faith.

Obj. 5. Further, The order of habits is taken from the
order of acts. Now, in the act of faith, the act of the will
which is perfected by charity, precedes the act of the
intellect, which is perfected by faith, as the cause which
precedes its effect. Therefore charity precedes faith.
Therefore faith is not the first of the virtues.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. xi. i) thsit faith
is the substance of things to be hoped for. Now the substance
of a thing is that which comes first. Therefore faith is
first among the virtues.

/ answer that, One thing can precede another, in two ways :
first, by its very nature; secondly, by accident. Faith, by its
very nature, precedes all other virtues. For since the end is

71 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4- Art. 7

the principle in matters of action, as stated above (I.-II.,
Q. XIIL, A. 3 : O. XXXIV., A. 4, ad i), the theological virtues,
the object of which is the last end, must needs precede all the
others. Again, the last end must of necessity be present to
the intellect before it is present to the will, since the will has
no inclination for anything except in so far as it is appre-
hended by the intellect. Hence, as the last end is present
in the will by hope and charity, and in the intellect, by faith,
the first of all the virtues must, of necessity, be faith,
because natural knowledge cannot reach God as the object
of heavenly bliss, which is the aspect under which hope and
charity tend towards Him.

On the other hand, some virtues can precede faith
accidentally. For an accidental cause precedes its effect
accidentally. Now that which removes an obstacle is a
kind of accidental cause, according to the Philosopher
(Phys. viii.): and in this sense certain virtues may be said
to precede faith accidentally, in so far as they remove
obstacles to belief. Thus fortitude removes the inordinate
fear that hinders faith; humility removes pride, whereby
a man refuses to submit himself to the truth of faith.
The same may be said of some other virtues, although there
are no real virtues, unless faith be presupposed, as Augustine
states (Contra Julian, iv.).

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2. Hope cannot lead to faith absolutely.
For one cannot hope to obtain eternal happiness, unless
one believes this possible, since hope does not tend to the
impossible, as stated above (I.-II., 0. XL., A. i). It is,
however, possible for one to be led by hope to persevere
in faith, or to hold firmly to faith; and it is in this sense
that hope is said to lead to faith.

Reply Obj. 3. Obedience is twofold: for sometimes it
denotes the inclination of the will to fulfil God's command-
ments. In this way it is not a special virtue, but is a general
condition of every virtue ; since all acts of virtue come under
the precepts of the Divine law, as stated above (I.-IL,
p. C, A. 2); and thus it is requisite for faith. In another

Q. 4. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 72

way, obedience denotes an inclination to fulfil the com-
mandments considered as a duty. In this way it is a special
virtue, and a part of justice: for a man does his duty by
his superior when he obeys him : and thus obedience follows
faith, whereby man knows that God is his superior, Whom he
must obey.

Reply Obj. 4. To be a foundation a thing requires not
only to come first, but also to be connected with the other
parts of the building : since the building would not be founded
on it unless the other parts adhered to it. Now the connect-
ing bond of the spiritual edifice is charity, according to
Coloss. iii. 14: Above all . . . things have charity which
is the bond^ of perfection. Consequently faith without
charity cannot be the foundation: and yet it does not
follow that charity precedes faith.

Reply Obj. 5. Some act of the will is required before faith,
but not an act of the will quickened by charity. This
latter act presupposes faith, because the will cannot tend
to God with perfect love, unless the intellect possesses right
faith about Him.

Eighth Article.

whether faith is more certain than science and
the other intellectual virtues ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that faith is not more certain than
science and the other intellectual virtues. For doubt is
opposed to certitude, wherefore a thing would seem to be
the more certain, through being less doubtful, just as a
thing is the whiter, the less it has of an admixture of black.
Now understanding, science and also wisdom are free of
any doubt about their objects; whereas the believer may
sometimes suffer a movement of doubt, and doubt about
matters of faith. Therefore faith is no more certain than
the intellectual virtues.

Obj. 2. Further, Sight is more certain than hearing.
But faith is through hearing according to Rom. x. 17;

73 THE VIRTUE ITSELF OF FAITH Q. 4. Art. 8

whereas understanding, science, and wisdom imply some
kind of intellectual sight. Therefore science and under-
standing are more certain than faith.

Obj. 3. Further, In matters concerning the intellect, the
more perfect is the more certain. Now understanding is
more perfect than faith, since faith is the way to under-
standing, according to another version* of Isa. vii. 9: //
youwill not believe, youshallnotunder stand (Vulg., — continue) :
and Augustine says [De Trin. xiv.) tha.t faith is strengthened
by science. Therefore it seems that science or understanding
is more certain than faith.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Thess. ii. 15): When
you had received of us the word of the hearing, i.e. by faith,
. . . you received it not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed,
the word of God. Now nothing is more certain than the word
of God. Therefore science is not more certain than faith;
nor is anything else.

/ answer that. As stated above (I. -II., Q. LVIL, A. 4,
ad 2) two of the intellectual virtues are about contingent
matter, viz. prudence and art; to which faith is preferable
in point of certitude, by reason of its matter, since it is
about eternal things, which never change, whereas the other
three intellectual virtues, viz. wisdom, sciencef and under-
standing, are about necessary things, as stated above
(I. -II., 0. LVIL, A. 5, ad 3). But it must be observed
that wisdom, science and understanding may be taken
in two ways: first, as intellectual virtues, according to the
Philosopher {Ethic, vi.); secondly, for gifts of the Holy
Ghost. If we consider them in the first way, we must note
that certitude can be looked at in two ways. First, on
the part of its cause, and thus a thing which has a more
certain cause, is itself more certain. In this way faith is
more certain than those three virtues, because it is founded
on the Divine truth, whereas the aforesaid three virtues
are based on human reason. Secondly, certitude may be
considered on the part of the subject, and thus the more a

* The Septuagint.

f In English the corresponding " gift " is called knowledge.

Q. 4. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOC.K A " 74

man's intellect lays hold of a thinp;, the more certain it
is. In this way, faith is less certain, because matters of
faith are above the human intellect, whereas the objects
of the aforesaid three virtues are not. Since, however,
a thing is judged simply with regard to its cause, but
relatively, with respect to a disposition on the part of the
subject, it follows that faith is more certain simply, while
the others are more certain relatively, i.e. for us. Likewise
if these three be taken as gifts received in this present life,
they are related to faith as to their principle which they
presuppose: so that again, in this way, faith is more certain.

Reply Obj. i. This doubt is not on the side of the cause
of faith, but on our side, in so far as we do not fully grasp
matters of faith with our intellect.

Reply Obj. 2. Other things being equal sight is more
certain than hearing; but if (the authority of) the person
from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer's
sight, hearing is m.ore certain than sight: thus a man of
little science is more certain about what he hears on the
authority of an expert in science, than about what is
apparent to him according to his o^vn reason: and much
more is a man certain about what he hears from Ciod, Who
cannot be deceived, ihe,n about what he sees with his own
reason, which can be mistaken.

Reply Obj. 3. The gifts of understanding and knowledge are
more perfect than the knowledge of faith in the point of their
greater clearness, but not in regard to more certain adhesion :
because the whole certitude of the gifts of understanding
and knowledge, arises from the certitude of faith, even as
the certitude of the knowledge of conclusions arises from the
certitude of the premisses. But in so far as science, wisdom
and understanding are intellectual virtues, they are based
upon the natural light of reason, which falls short of the
certitude of God's word, on which faith is founded.

QUESTION V.

OF THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH.

{fn Four Articles.)

We must now consider those who have faith: under which
head there are four points of inquiry: (i) Whether there
was faith in the angels, or in man, in their original state ?
(2) Whether the demons have faith ? (3) Whether those
heretics who err in one article, have faith in the others ?
(4) Whether among those who have faith, one has it more
than another ?

First Article.

whether there was faith in the angels, or in
man, in their original state ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that there was no faith, either in
the angels, or in man, in their original state. For Hugh of
S. Victor says in his Sentences (De Sacram. i.) that man
cannot see God or things that are in God, because he closes his
eyes to contemplation. Now the angels, in their original
state, before they were either confirmed in grace, or had
fallen from it, had their eyes opened to contemplation,
since they saw things in the Word, according to Augustine
(Gen. ad lit. ii.). Likewise the first man, while in the state
of innocence, seemingly had his eyes open to contempla-
tion; for Hugh of S. Victor says (ibid.) that in his original
state man kneiv his Creator, not by the mere oiitivard perception
of hearing, but by imvard inspiration, not as now believers
seek an absent God by faith, but by seeing Him clearly present

75

Q. 5. Art. I THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 76

to their contemplation. Therefore there was no faith in
the angels and man in their original state.

Ohj. 2. Further, The knowledge of faith is dark and
obscure, according to i Cor. xiii. 12: We see now through a
glass in a dark 7nanner. Now in their original state there
was no obscurity either in the angels or in man, because
it is a punishment of sin. Therefore there could be no faith
in the angels or in man, in their original state.

Ohj. 3. Further, The Apostle says (Rom. x. 17) that
faith . . . Cometh hy hearing. Now this could not apply to
angels and man in their original state ; for then they could
not hear anything from another. Therefore, in that state,
there was no faith either in man or in the angels.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. xi. 6) : He that cometh to
God, must believe. Now the original state of angels and man
was one of approach to God. Therefore they had need of
faith.

/ answer that, Some say that there was no faith in the
angels before they were confirmed in grace or fell from it,
and in man before he sinned, by reason of the manifest
contemplation that they had of Divine things. Since,
however, faith is the evidence of things that appear not,
according to the Apostle (Heb. xi. i), and since hy faith
we believe what we see not, according to Augustine (Tract, xl.
in Joan. : QQ. Evang. ii.), that manifestation alone excludes
faith, which renders apparent or seen the principal object
of faith. Now the principal object of faith is the First
Truth, the sight of which gives the happiness of heaven
and takes the place of faith. Consequently, as the angels
before their confirmation in grace, and man before sin, did
not possess the happiness whereby God is seen in His
Essence, it is evident that the knowledge they possessed
was not such as to exclude faith.

It follows, then, that the absence of faith in them could
only be explained by their being altogether ignorant of the
object of faith. And if man and the angels were created
in a purely natural state, as some hold, perhaps one might
hold that there was no faith in the angels before their

77 THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH Q. 5. Art. i

confirmation in grace, or in man before sin, because the
knowledge of faith surpasses not only a man's but even
an angel's natural knowledge about God.

Since, however, we stated in the First Part (Q. LXIL,
A. 3: Q. XCV., A. i) that man and the angels were created
with the gift of grace, we must needs say that there was in
them a certain beginning of hoped-for happiness, by reason
of grace received but not yet consummated, which happiness
was begun in their will by hope and charity, and in the
intellect by faith, as stated above (Q. IV., A. 7). Conse-
quently we must hold that the angels had faith before they
were confirmed, and man, before he sinned. Nevertheless
we must observe that in the object of faith, there is some-
thing formal, as it were, namely the First Truth surpassing
all the natural knowledge of a creature, and something
material, namely, the thing to which we assent while
adhering to the First Truth. With regard to the former,
before obtaining the happiness to come, faith is common
to all who have knowledge of God, by adhering to the First
Truth : whereas with regard to the things which are proposed
as the material object of faith, some are believed by one,
and known manifestly by another, even in the present state,
as we have shown above (Q. L, A. 5 : O. II., A. 4, ad 2).
In this respect, too, it may be said that the angels before
being confirmed, and man, before sin, possessed manifest
knowledge about certain points in the Divine mysteries,
which now we cannot know except by believing them.

Reply Ohj. i. Although the words of Hugh of S. Victor
are those of a master, and have the force of an authority,
yet it may be said that the contemplation which removes
the need of faith, is heavenly contemplation, whereby the
supernatural truth is seen in its essence. Now the angels
did not possess this contemplation before they were con-
firmed, nor did man before he sinned : yet their contemplation
was of a higher order than ours, for by its means they
approached nearer to God, and had manifest knowledge of
more of the Divine effects and mysteries than we can have
knowledge of. Hence faith was not in them so that they

Q. 5. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOCilCA " 78

sought an absent God as we seek Him : since by the hght
of wisdom He was more present to them than He is to us,
although He was not so present to them as He is to the
Blessed by the light of glory.

Reply Obj. 2. There was no darkness of sin or punishment
in the original state of man and the angels, but there was
a certain natural obscurity in the human and angelic
intellect, in so far as every creature is darkness in com-
parison with the immensity of the Divine light : and this
obscurity suffices for faith.

Reply Obj. 3. In the original state there was no hearing
anything from man speaking outwardly, but there was
from (iod inspiring inwardly: thus the prophets heard, as
expressed by the Psalm (Ixxxiv. 9) : / will hear what the
Lord God will speak in me.

Second Article,
wjietiier in the demons there is faith ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the demons have no faith.
For Augustine says [De Prcedest. Sand, v.) that faith
depends on the believer^ s will : and this is a good will, since
by it man wishes to believe in God. Since then no deliberate
will of the demons is good, as stated above (P. I., Q. LXIV.,
A. 2, ad 5), it seems that in the demons there is no faith.

Obj. 2. Further, Faith is a gift of Divine grace, according
to Eph. ii. 8 : By grace you are saved through faith, . . . for
it is the gift of God. Now^ according to a gloss on Osee iii. i,
They look to strange gods, and love the husks of the grapes,
the demons lost their gifts of grace by sinning. There-
fore faith did not remain in the demons after they
sinned.

Obj. 3. Further, Unbelief would seem to be graver than
other sins, as Augustine observes (Tract. Ixxxix. super Joan.)
on John xv. 22, // / had not come and spoken to them, they
would not have sin : but now they have no excuse for their
sin. Now the sin of unbelief is in som.e men. Consequently,

79 THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH Q. 5- Art. 1

if the demons have faith, some men would be guilty of a
sin graver than that of the demons, which seem.s unreason-
able. Therefore in the demons there is no faith.

On the contrary, It is written (James ii. 19) : The devils
, . . believe and tremble.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. I., A. 4: Q. II., A. i),
the believer's intellect assents to that which he believes,
not because he sees it either in itself, or by resolving it to
first self-evident principles, but because his will commands
his intellect to assent. Now, that the will moves the intellect
to assent, may be due to two causes. First, through the will
being directed to the good, and in this way, to believe is a
praiseworthy action. Secondly, because the intellect is
convinced that it ought to believe what is said, though that
conviction is not based on objective evidence. Thus if a
prophet, while preaching the word of God, were to foretell
something, and were to give a sign, by raising a dead person
to life, the ixitellect of a witness would be convinced so as
to recognize clearly that God, Who lieth not, was speaking,
although the thing itself foretold would not be evident in
itself, and consequently the essence of faith would not be
removed.

Accordingly we must say that faith is commended in the
first sense in the faithful of Christ : and in this way faith is,
not in the demons, but only in the second way, for they
see many evident signs, whereby they recognize that the
teaching of the Church is from God, although they do not
see the things themselves that the Church teaches, for in-
stance that there are three Persons in God, and so forth.

Reply Obj. i. The demons are, in a way, compelled to
believe, by the evidence of signs, and so their will deserves
no praise for their belief.

Reply Obj. 2. Faith, which is a gift of grace, inclines man
to believe, by giving him a certain affection for the good,
even when that faith is lifeless. Consequently the faith
which the demons have, is not a gift of grace. Rather are
they compelled to believe through their natural intellectual
acumen.

Q. 5. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 80

Reply Ohj. 3. The very fact that the signs of faith are so
evident, that the demons are compelled to believe, is dis-
pleasing to them, so that their malice is by no means
diminished by their belief.

Third Article.

whether a man who disbelieves one article of
faith, can have lifeless faith in the other
articles ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a heretic who disbelieves one
article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles.
For the natural intellect of a heretic is not more able than
that of a catholic. Now a catholic's intellect needs the
aid of the gift of faith in order to believe any article what-
ever of faith. Therefore it seems that heretics cannot
believe any articles of faith without the gift of lifeless
faith.

Ohj. 2. Further, Just as faith contains many articles, so
does one science, viz. geometry, contain many conclusions.
Now a man may possess the science of geometry as to some
geometrical conclusions, and yet be ignorant of other
conclusions. Therefore a man can believe some articles
of faith, without believing the others.

Ohj. 3. Further, Just as man obeys God in believing the
articles of faith, so does he also in keeping the commandments
of the Law. Now a man can obey some commandments,
and disobey others. Therefore he can believe some articles,
and disbelieve others.

On the contrary, Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity,
so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now
charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin.
Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one
article.

I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in
a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.

8i THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH Q. 5. Art. 3

The reason of this is that the species of every habit
depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which
the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal
object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy
Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from
the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as
to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church,
which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy
Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of
faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that
a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing
how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely
an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres
to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule,
assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of
the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses
to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer
adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible
rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic
who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not
prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things ;
but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only
in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with
regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but
only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.

Reply Obj. i. A heretic does not hold the other articles
of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as
one of the faithful does, namely by adhering sin^ply to
the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the
help of the habit of faith ; but he holds the things that arc
of faith, by his own will and judgment.

Reply Obj. 2. The various conclusions of a science havT
their respective means of demonstration, one of wliich may
be known without another, so that we may know some
conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On
the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by
reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth
proposed to us in the Scriptures, according to the teaching

II. ii. I 6

Q. 5. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 82

of the Church who has the right understanding of them.
Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking
in faith.

Reply Ohj. 3. The various precepts of the Law may be
referred either to their respective proximate motives, and
thus one can be kept without another; or to their primary
motive, which is perfect obedience to God, in which a man
fails whenever he breaks one commandment, according to
James ii. 10: Whosoever shall . . . offend in one point
is become guilty of all.

Fourth Article.

whether faith can be greater in one man than

in another ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that faith cannot be greater in one
man than in another. For the quantity of a habit is taken
from its object. Now whoever has faith believes everything
that is of faith, since by failing in one point, a man loses
his faith altogether, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore it
seems that faith cannot be greater in one than in another.

Obj. 2. Further, Those things which consist in something
supreme cannot be more or less. Now faith consists in
something supreme, because it requires that man should
adhere to the First Truth above all things. Therefore
faith cannot be more or less.

Obj. 3. Further, Faith is to knowledge by grace, as the
understanding of principles is to natural knowledge, since
the articles of faith are the first principles of knowledge by
grace, as was shown above (Q. L, A. 7). Now the under-
standing of principles is possessed in equal degree by all
men. Therefore faith is possessed in equal degree by
all the faithful.

On the co7itrary, Wherever we find great and little, there
we find more and less. Now in the matter of faith we find
great and little, for Our Lord said to Peter (Matth. xiv. 31) :
0 thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt ? And to the woman

83 THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH Q. 5- Art. 4

he said (Matth. xv. 28) : 0 woman, great is thy faith I There-
fore faith can be greater in one than in another.

/ answer that, As stated above (L-H., Q. LIT, AA. i, 2;
Q. CXIL, A. 4), the quantity of a habit may be considered
from two points of view: first, on the part of the object,
secondly, on the part of its participation by the subject.

Now the object of faith may be considered in two ways,
first, in respect of its formal aspect, secondly, in respect of
the material object which is proposed to be believed. Now
the formal object of faith is one and simple, namely the
First Truth, as stated above (Q. I., A. i). Hence in this
respect there is no diversity of faith among believers, but
it is specifically one in all, as stated above (Q. TV., A. 6).
But the things which are proposed as the matter of our
belief are many and can be received more or less explicitly ;
and in this respect one man can believe explicitly more
things than another, so that faith can be greater in one
man on account of its being more explicit.

If, on the other hand, we consider faith from the point
of view of its participation by the subject, this happens
in two ways, since the act of faith proceeds both from the
intellect and from the will, as stated above (Q. II., AA. i, 2 :
Q. IV., A. 2). Consequently a man's faith may be described
as being greater, in one way, on the part of his intellect,
on account of its greater certitude and firmness, and, in
another way, on the part of his will, on account of his greater
promptitude, devotion, or confidence.

Reply Obj. i. A man who obstinately disbelieves a thing
that is of faith, has not the habit of faith, and yet he who
does not explicitly believe all, while he is prepared to believe
all, has that habit. In this respect, one man has greater
faith than another, on the part of the object, in so far as
he believes more things, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. It is essential to faith that one should give
the first place to the First Truth. But among those who
do this, some submit to it with greater certitude and
devotion than others ; and in this way faith is greater in one
than in another.

O. 5. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 84

Reply Obj. 3. The understanding of principles results
from man's very nature, which is equally shared by all:
whereas faith results from the gift of grace, which is not
equally in all, as explained above (I. -II., 0. CXIL, A. 4).
Hence the comparison fails.

Nevertheless the truth of principles is more known to
one than to another, according to the greater capacity of
intellect.

QUESTION VI.

OF THE CAUSJC OF FAFrH.

{In Two Articles.)

Wk must now consider the cause of faith, under which
head there are two points of inquiry: (i) Whether faith is
infused into man by God ? (2) Whether Hfeless faith is
a gift of (iod ?

First Artu:le.
whether faith is infused into man by god ?

Wc proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that faith is not infused into man
by God. For Augustine says (De Trin. xiv.) that science
begets faith in us, and nourishes, defends and strengthens it.
Now those things which science begets in us seem to be
acquired rather than infused. Therefore faith does not
seem to be in us by Divine infusion.

Obi. 2. Inirther, That to which man attains by hearing
and seeing, seems to be acquired by him. Now man attains
to behef, both by seeing miracles, and by hearing the
teachings of faith: for it is written (John iv. 53): 77/6'
father . . . knew that it was at the same hour, that Jesus
said to him, Thy son liveth ; and himself believed, and his
whole house; and (Rom. x. 17) it is said that faith is
through hearing. Therefore man attains to faith by ac-
quiring it.

Obj. 3. Further, That which depends on a man's will can
be acquired by him. But faith depends on the believer's
will, according to Augustine (7)^' Prcrdest. Sanct. v.). There-
fore faith can be acquired by man.

S5

Q. 6. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 86

On the contrary, It is written (Eph. ii. 8, 9) : By grace you
are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves . . . that
no man may glory . . . for it is the gift of God.

I answer that. Two things are requisite for faith. First,
that the things which are of faith should be proposed to
man: this is necessary in order that man beheve anything
exphcitly. The second thing requisite for faith is the
assent of the behever to the things which are proposed to
him. Accordingly, as regards the first of these, faith must
needs be from God. Because those things which are of
faith surpass human reason, hence they do not come to
man's knowledge, unless God reveal them. To some,
indeed, they are revealed by God immediately, as those
things which were revealed to the apostles and prophets,
while to some they are proposed by God in sending preachers
of the faith, according to Rom. x. 15 : How shall they preach,
unless they he sent ?

As regards the second, viz. man's assent to the things
which are of faith, we may observe a twofold cause, one of
external inducement, such as seeing a miracle, or being
persuaded by someone to embrace the faith: neither
of which is a sufficient cause, since of those who see the
same miracle, or who hear the same sermon, some believe,
and some do not. Hence we must assert another internal
cause, which moves man inwardly to assent to matters of
faith.

The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than
man's free-will: and consequently they said that the
beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit,
it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which
are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from
God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe.
But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of
faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to
him from some supernatural principle moving him in-
wardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the
assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving
man inwardly by grace.

%y THE CAUSE OF FAITH Q. 6. Art. 2

Reply Obj. i. Science begets and nourishes faith, by way
of external persuasion afforded by science; but the chief
and proper cause of faith is that which moves man inwardly
to assent.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument again refers to the cause
that proposes outwardly the things that are of faith, or
persuades man to believe by words or deeds.

Reply Obj. 3. To believe does indeed depend on the will of
the believer : but man's will needs to be prepared by God
with grace, in order that he may be raised to things which
are above his nature, as stated above (Q. IL, A. 3).

Second Article,
whether lifeless faith is a gift of god ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that lifeless faith is not a gift of
God. '^For it is written (Deut. xxxii. 4) that the works of
God are perfect. Now lifeless faith is something imperfect.
Therefore it is not the work of God.

Obj. 2. Further, Just as an act is said to be deformed
through lacking its due form, so too is faith called lifeless
(informis) when it lacks the form due to it. Now the
deformed act of sin is not from God, as stated above
(I. -II., Q. LXXIX., A. 2, ad 2). Therefore neither is life-
less faith from God.

Obj. 3. Further, Whomsoever God heals. He heals wholly:
for it is written (John vii. 23) : If a man receive circumcision
on the sabbath-day , that the law of Moses may not be broken ;
are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on
the sabbath-day ? Now faith heals man from unbelief.
Therefore whoever receives from God the gift of faith, is
at the same time healed from all his sins. But this is not
done except by living faith. Therefore living faith alone
is a gift of God: and consequently lifeless faith is not from
God.

On the contrary, A gloss on i Cor. xiii. 2 says that the faith

Q. 0. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 88

which lacks charity is a gift of God. Now this is lifeless
faith. Therefore lifeless faith is a gift of God.

/ answer that, Lifelessness is a privation. Now it must
be noted that privation is sometimes essential to the
species, whereas sometimes it is not, but supervenes in a
thing already possessed of its proper species: thus priva-
tion of the due equilibrium of the humours is essential to
the species of sickness, while darkness is not essential to a
diaphanous body, but supervenes in it. Since, therefore,
when we assign the cause of a thing, we intend to assign
the cause of that thing as existing in its proper species,
it follows that what is not the cause of a privation, cannot
be assigned as the cause of the thing to which that privation
belongs as being essential to its species. For we cannot
assign as the cause of a sickness, something which is not the
cause of a disturbance in the humours : though we can assign
as cause of a diaphanous body, something which is not
the cause of the darkness, which is not essential to the
diaphanous body.

Now the lifelessness of faith is not essential to the species
of faith, since faith is said to be lifeless through lack of an
extrinsic form, as stated above (Q. IV., A. 4). Consequently
the cause of lifeless faith is that which is the cause of
faith strictly so called: and this is (lod, as stated above
(A. i). It follows, therefore, that lifeless faith is a gift
of God.

Reply Ohj. i. Lifeless faith, though it is not simply
perfect with the perfection of a virtue, is, nevertheless,
perfect with a perfection that suffices for the essential notion
of faith.

Reply Obj. 2. The deformity of an act is essential to the
act's species, considered as a moral act, as stated above
(P. I., Q. XLVIIL, A. 1, ad2\ I.-IL, Q. XVIII., A. 5): for
an act is said to be deformed through being deprived of an
intrinsic form, viz. the due commensuration of the act's
circumstances. Hence we cannot say that God is the cause
of a deformed act, for He is not the cause of its deformity,
though He is the cause of the act as such.

89 THE CAUSE OF FAITH g. 6. Art. 2

We may also reply that deformity denotes not only
privation of a due form, but also a contrary disposition,
wherefore deformity is compared to the act, as falsehood
is to faith. Hence, just as the deformed act is not from
God, so neither is a false faith; and as lifeless faith is from
(xod, so too, acts that are good generically, though not
quickened by charity, as is frequently the case in sinners,
are from God.

Rzply O'jj. J. He who receives faith from God without
charity, is healed from unbelief, not entirely (because the
sin of his previous unbelief is not removed) but in part,
namely, in the point of ceasing from committing such and
such a sin. Thus it happens frequently that a man desists
from one act of sin, through God causing him thus to desist,
without desisting from another act of sin, through the
instigation of his own malice. And in this way sometimes
it is granted by (lOd to a man to believe, and yet he is not
granted the gift of charity : even so the gift of prophecy, or
the like, is given to some without charity.

QUESTION VII.

OF THE EFFECTS OF FAITH.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider the effects of faith; under which
head there are two points of inquiry: (i) Whether fear is
an effect of faith ? (2) Whether the heart is purified by
faith ?

First Article,
whether fear is an effect of faith ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that fear is not an effect of faith.
For an effect does not precede its cause. Now fear pre-
cedes faith: for it is written (Ecclus. ii. 8): Ye that fear the
Lord, believe in Him. Therefore fear is not an effect of
faith.

Obj. 2, Further, The same thing is not the cause of
contraries. Now fear and hope are contraries, as stated
above (L-IL, Q. XXIII., A. 2) : and faith begets hope,
as a gloss observes on Matth. i. 2. Therefore fear is not
an effect of faith.

Obj. 3. Further, One contrary does not cause another.
Now the object of faith is a good, which is the First Truth,
while the object of fear is an evil, as stated above (I. -II.,
Q. XLIL, A. i). Again, acts take their species from the
object, according to what was stated above (I. -II., Q. XVIII.,
A. 2) . Therefore faith is not a cause of fear.

On the contrary, It is written (James ii. 19) : The devils
, , . believe and tremble.

90

91 THE EFFECTS OF FAITH Q. 7. Art. i

/ answer that, Fear is a movement of the appetitive
power, as stated above (I. -II.: Q. XLL, A. i). Now the
principle of all appetitive movements is good or evil appre-
hended: and consequently the principle of fear and of
every appetitive movement must be an apprehension.
Again, through faith there arises in us an apprehension of
certain penal evils, which are inflicted in accordance with
the Divine judgment. In this way, then, faith is a cause
of the fear whereby one dreads to be punished by God;
and this is servile fear.

It is also a cause of filial fear, whereby one dreads to be
separated from God, or whereby one shrinks from equalling
oneself to Him, and holds Him in reverence, inasmuch as
faith makes us appreciate God as an unfathomable and
supreme good, separation from which is the greatest evil,
and to which it is wicked to wish to be equalled. Of the
first fear, viz. servile fear, lifeless faith is the cause, while
living faith is the cause of the second, viz. filial fear,
because it makes man adhere to God and to be subject
to Him by charity.

Reply Obj. i. Fear of God cannot altogether precede
faith, because if we knew nothing at all about Him, with
regard to rewards and punishments, concerning which
faith teaches us, we should nowise fear Him. If, however,
faith be presupposed in reference to certain articles of faith,
for example the Divine excellence, then reverential fear
follows, the result of which is that man submits his intellect
to God, so as to believe in all the Divine promises. Hence
the text quoted continues: And your reward shall not he
made void.

Reply Obj. 2. The same thing in respect of contraries can
be the cause of contraries, but not under the same aspect.
Now faith begets hope, in so far as it enables us to appreciate
the prize which God awards to the just, while it is the cause
of fear, in so far as it makes us appreciate the punishments
which He intends to inflict on sinners.

Reply Obj. 3. The primary and formal object of faith is
the good which is the First Truth; but the material object

g. 7. Am. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 92

of faith includes also certain evils; for instance, that it
is an evil either not to submit to (jod, or to be separated
from Him, and that sinners will suffer penal evils from
(jod : in this way faith can be the cause of fear.

Second Article,
whether faith has the effect of purifying the

HEART ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article :--

Objection 1. It seems that faith does not purify the heart.
For purity of the heart pertains chiefly to the affections,
whereas faith is in the intellect. Therefore faith has not
the effect of purifying the heart.

Obj. 2. Further, That which purifies the heart is incom-
patible with impurity. But faith is compatible with the
impurity of sin, as may be seen in those who have lifeless
faith. Therefore faith does not purify the heart.

Obj. 3. Further, If faith were to purify the human heart
in any way, it would chiefly purify the intellect of man.
Now it does not purify the intellect from obscurity, since it
is a veiled knowledge. Therefore faith nowise purifies
the heart.

On the contrary, Peter said (Acts xv. 9) : Purifying their
hearts by faith.

I answer that, A thing is impure through being mixed
with baser things : for silver is not called impure, when mixed
with gold, which betters it, but when mixed with lead or
tin. Now it is evident that the rational creature is more
excellent than all transient and corporeal creatures ; so that
it becomes impure through subjecting itself to transient
things by loving them. From this impurity the rational
creature is purified by means of a contrary movement,
namely, by tending to that which is above it, viz. God.
The first beginning of this movement is faith: since he that
Cometh to God must believe that He is, according to Heb. xi. 6.
Hence the first beginning of the heart's purifying is faith;

93 THE EFFECTS OF FAITH Q. 7. Art. 2

and if this be perfected through being quickened by charity,
the heart will be perfectly purified thereby.

Reply Ohj. i. Things that are in the intellect are the
principles of those which are in the appetite, in so far as
the apprehended good moves the appetite.

Reply Ohj. 2. Even lifeless faith excludes a certain im-
purity which is contrary to it, viz. that of error, and which
consists in the human intellect adhering inordinately to
things below itself, through wishing to measure Divine things
by the rule of sensible objects. But when it is quickened
by charity, then it is incompatible with any kind of impurity,
because charity covereih all sins (Prov. x. 12).

Reply Ohj. 3. The obscurity of faith does not pertain to
the impurity of sin, but rather to the natural defect of the
human intellect, according to the present state of life.

QUESTION VIII.

OF THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING.

{In Eight Articles.)

We must now consider the gifts of understanding and
knowledge, which respond to the virtue of faith. With
regard to the gift of understanding there are eight points
of inquiry: (i) Whether understanding is a gift of the Holy
Ghost ? (2) Whether it can be together with faith in the
same person ? (3) Whether the understanding which is
a gift of the Holy Ghost, is only speculative, or practical
also ? (4) Whether all who are in a state of grace have
the gift of understanding ? (5) Whether this gift is to
be found in those who are without grace ? (6) Of the
relationship of the gift of understanding to the other gifts.

(7) Which of the beatitudes corresponds to this gift ?

(8) Which of the fruits ?

First Article,
whether understanding is a gift of the holy

GHOST ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that understanding is not a gift of
the Holy Ghost. For the gifts of grace are distinct from the
gifts of nature, since they are given in addition to the latter.
Now understanding is a natural habit of the soul, whereby
self-evident principles are known, as stated in Ethic, vi.
Therefore it should not be reckoned among the gifts of the
Holy Ghost.

Ohj. 2. Further, The Divine gifts are shared by creatures
according to their capacity and mode, as Dionysius states

94

95 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Art. i

(Div. Nom. iv.). Now the mode of human nature is to
know the truth, not simply (which is a sign of understanding),
but discursively (which is a sign of reason), as Dionysius
explains (Div. Nom. vii.). Therefore the Divine knowledge
which is bestowed on man, should be called a gift of reason
rather than a gift of understanding.

Ohj. 3. Further, In the powers of the soul the under-
standing is condivided with the will {De Anima iii.). Now
no gift of the Holy Ghost is called after the will. Therefore
no gift of the Holy Ghost should receive the name of
understanding.

On the contrary, It is written (Isa. xi. 2) : The Spirit of the
Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of under-
standing.

I answer that, The word intellectus [understanding] implies
an intimate knowledge, for intelligere (to understand) is the
same as intus legere (to read inwardly). This is clear to
anyone who considers the difference between intellect and
sense, because sensitive knowledge is concerned with
external sensible qualities, whereas intellective knowledge
penetrates into the very essence of a thing, because the
object of the intellect is what a thing is, as stated in De
Anima iii.

Now there are many kinds of things that are hidden
within, to find which human knowledge has to penetrate
within so to speak. Thus, under the accidents lies hidden
the nature of the substantial reality, under words lies
hidden their meaning; under likenesses and figures the
truth they denote lies hidden (because the intelligible
world is enclosed within as compared with the sensible
world, which is perceived externally), and effects lie hidden
in their causes, and vice versa. Hence we may speak of
understanding with regard to all these things.

Since, however, human knowledge begins with the
outside of things as it were, it is evident that the stronger
the light of the understanding, the further can it penetrate
into the heart of things. Now the natural light of our
understanding is of finite power; wherefore it can reach to

Q. 8. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 96

a certain fixed point. Consequently man needs a super-
natural light, in order to penetrate further still so as to
know what it cannot know by its natural light : and this
supernatural light which is bestowed on man is called
the gift of understanding.

Reply Obj. i. The natural light instilled within us,
manifests only certain general principles, which are known
naturally. But since man is ordained to supernatural
happiness, as stated above (Q. IL, A. 3 : T-IL, (J. III., A. 8),
man needs to reach to certain higher truths, for which he
requires the gift of understanding.

Reply Obj. 2. The discourse of reason always begins
from an understanding and ends at an understanding;
because we reason by proceeding from certain understood
principles, and the discourse of reason is perfected when
we come to understand what hitherto we ignored. Hence
the act of reasoning proceeds from something previously
understood. Now a gift of grace does not proceed from the
light of nature, but is added thereto as perfecting it.
Wherefore this addition is not called reason but under-
standing, since the additional light is in comparison with
what we know supernaturally, what the natural light is
in regard to those things which we know from the first.

Reply Obj. 3. Will denotes simply a movement of the
appetite without indicating any excellence; whereas under-
standing denotes a certain excellence of a knowledge that
penetrates into the heart of things. Hence the super-
natural gift is called after the understanding rather than
after the will.

Second Article.

whether the gift of understanding is compatible

with faith ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that the gift of understanding is
incompatible with faith. For Augustine says (QQ. 83)
that the thing which is understood is bounded by the cornpre-

97 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Art. 2

hension of him who understands it. But the thing which is
beheved is not comprehended, according to the word of
the Apostle to the Phihppians (iii. 12) : Not as though I had
already comprehended (Douay, — attained), or were already
perfect. Therefore it seems that faith and understanding
are incompatible in the same subject.

Ohj. 2. Further, Whatever is understood is seen by the
understanding. But faith is of things that appear not,
as stated above (Q. I., A. 4: Q. IV., A. i). Therefore
faith is incompatible with understanding in the same
subject.

Ohj. 3. Further, Understanding is more certain than
science. But science and faith are incompatible in the same
subject, as stated above (Q. I., AA. 4, 5). Much less;
therefore, can understanding and faith be in the same
subject.

On the contrary, Gregory says {Moral, i.) that under-
standing enlightens the mind concerning the things it has
heard. Now one who has faith can be enlightened in his
mind concerning what he has heard; thus it is written
(Luke xxiv. 27, 32) that Our Lord opened the scriptures to
His disciples, that they might understand them. There-
fore understanding is compatible with faith.

I answer that, We need to make a twofold distinction
here: one on the side of faith, the other on the part of
understanding.

On the side of faith the distinction to be made is that
certain things, of themselves, come directly under faith,
because they surpass natural reason, such as the mystery
of three Persons in one God, and the incarnation of God
the Son; whereas other things come under faith, through
being subordinate, in one way or another, to those just
mentioned, for instance, all that is contained in the Di\'ine
Scriptures.

On the part of understanding the distinction to be
observed is that there are two ways in which we may be
said to understand. In one way, we understand a thing
perfectly, when we arrive at knowing the essence of the

II ii. I 7

Q. 8. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 98

thing wc understand, and the very truth considered in
itself of the proposition understood. In this way, so long
as the state of faith lasts, we cannot understand those
things which are the direct object of faith: although certain
other things that are subordinate to faith can be under-
stood even in this way.

In another way we understand a thing imperfectly, when
the essence of a thing or the truth of a proposition is not
known as to its quiddity or mode of being, and yet we
know that whatever be the outward appearances, they
do not contradict the truth, in so far as we understand
that we ought not to depart from matters of faith, for the
sake of things that appear externally. In this way, even
during the state of faith, nothing hinders us from under-
standing even those things which are the direct object of
faith.

This suihces for the Replies to the Objections : for the
first three argue in reference to perfect understanding,
while the last refers to the understanding of matters sub-
ordinate to faith.

Third Article.

whether the gift of understanding is merely
speculative, or also practical ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that understanding, considered as
a gift of the Holy Ghost, is not practical, but only speculative.
For, according to Gregory (Moral, i.), understanding pene-
trates certain more exalted things. But the practical intellect
is occupied, not with exalted, but with inferior things, viz.
singulars, about which actions are concerned. Therefore
understanding, considered as a gift, is not practical.

Obj. 2. Further, The gift of understanding is something
more excellent than the intellectual virtue of understanding.
But the intellectual virtue of understanding is concerned
with none but necessary things, according to the Philo-
sopher (Ethic, vi.). Much more, therefore, is the gift of

99 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Art. 3

understanding concerned with none but necessary matters.
Now the practical intellect is not about necessary things,
but about things which may be otherwise than they are,
and which may result from man's activity. Therefore the
gift of understanding is not practical.

Obj. 3. Further, The gift of understanding enlightens the
mind in matters which surpass natural reason. Now human
activities, with which the practical intellect is concerned,
do not surpass natural reason, which is the directing principle
in matters of action, as was made clear above (L-IL,
Q. LVIII., A. 2: 0. LXXL, A. 6). Therefore the gift of
understanding is not practical.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. ex. 10) : A good under-
standing to all that do it.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 2), the gift of under-
standing is not only about those things which come under
faith first and principally, but also about all things sub-
ordinate to faith. Now good actions have a certain
relationship to faith: since faith worketh through charity,
according to the Apostle (Gal. v. 6). Hence the gift of
imderstanding extends also to certain actions, not as though
these were its principal object, but in so far as the rule of
our actions is the eternal law, to which the higher reason,
which is perfected by the gift of understanding, adheres
by contemplating and consulting it, as Augustine states
(De Trin. xii.).

Reply Obj. i. The things with which human actions are
concerned are not surpassingly exalted considered in them-
selves, but, as referred to the rule of the eternal law, and
to the end of Divine happiness, they arc exalted so that
they can be the matter of understanding.

Reply Obj. 2. The excellence of the gift of understanding
consists precisely in its considering eternal or necessary
matters, not only as they are in themselves, but also as
they are rules of human actions, because a cognitive virtue
is the more excellent, according to the greater extent of its
object.

Reply Obj. 3. The rule of human actions is the human

Q. 8. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 100

reason and the eternal law, as stated above (I. -II., 0. LXXI..
A. 6). Now the eternal law surpasses human reason: so
that the knowledge of human actions, as ruled by the
eternal law, surpasses the natural reason, and requires the
supernatural light of a gift of the Holy Ghost .

Fourth Article.

whether the gift of understanding is in all
who are in a state of grace ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the gift of understanding is
not in all who are in a state of grace. For Gregory says
{Moral, ii.) that the gift of understanding is given as a remedy
against dulness of the mind. Now many who are in a state
of grace suffer from dulness of the mind. Therefore the
gift of understanding is not in all who are in a state of
grace.

Ohj. 2. Further, Of all things that are connected with
knowledge, faith alone seems to be necessary for salvation,
since by faith Christ dwells in our hearts, according to
Eph. iii. 17. Now the gift of understanding is not in
everyone that has faith; indeed, those who have faith
ought to pray that they may understand, as Augustine
says (De Trin. xv.). Therefore the gift of understanding
is not necessary for salvation: and, consequently, is not
in all who are in a state of grace .

Ohj. 3. Further, Those things which are common to all
who are in a state of grace, are never withdrawn from them.
Now the grace of understanding and of the other gifts
sometimes withdraws itself profitably, for, at times, when
the mind is puffed up with understanding sublime things,
it becomes sluggish and dull in base and vile things, as Gregory
observes [Moral, ii.). Therefore the gift of understanding
is not in all who are in a state of grace.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. Ixxxi. 5) : They have not
known or understood, they walk on in darkness. But no one
who is in a state of grace walks in darkness, according to

loi THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Art. 4

John viii. 12: He that follow eth Me, walketh not in darkness.
Therefore no one who is in a state of grace is without the
gift of understanding.

/ answer that, In all who are in a state of grace, there
must needs be rectitude of the will, since grace prepares
man's will for good, according to Augustine (Contra Julian.
Pelag. iv.). Now the will cannot be rightly directed to
good, unless there be already some knowledge of the
truth, since the object of the will is good understood, as
stated in De Anima iii. Again, just as the Holy Ghost
directs man's will by the gift of charity, so as to move it
directly to some supernatural good; so also, by the gift of
understanding, He enlightens the human mind, so that it
knows some supernatural truth, to which the right will
needs to tend.

Therefore, just as the gift of charity is in all those who
have sanctifying grace, so also is the gift of understanding.

Reply Ohj. i. Some who have sanctifying grace may
suffer dulness of mind with regard to things that are not
necessary for salvation; but with regard to those that are
necessary for salvation, they are sufficiently instructed
by the Holy Ghost, according to i John ii. 27: His unction
teacheth you of all things.

Reply Ohj. 2. Although not all who have faith understand
fully the things that are proposed to be believed, yet they
understand that they ought to believe them, and that they
ought nowise to deviate from them.

Reply Ohj. 3. With regard to things necessary for salva-
tion, the gift of understanding never withdraws from holy
persons: but, in order that they may have no incentive to
pride, it does withdraw sometimes with regard to other
things, so that their mind is unable to penetrate all things
clearly.

Q. 8. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGlCA ** 102

Fifth Article.

whether the gift of understanding is found also in
those who have not sanctifying grace ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the gift of understanding is
found also in those who have not sanctifying grace. For
Augustine, in expounding the words of Ps. cxviii. 20 : My
soul hath coveted to long for Thy justifications, says: Under-
standing flies ahead, and man^s will is weak and slow to
follow. But in all who have sanctifying grace, the will is
prompt on account of charity. Therefore the gift of
understanding can be in those who have not sanctifying
grace.

Obj. 2. Further, It is written (Dan. x. i) that there is
need of understanding in a prophetic visio7i, so that, seem-
ingly, there is no prophecy without the gift of understand-
ing. But there can be prophecy without sanctifying
grace, as evidenced by Matth. vii. 22, where those who
say: We have prophesied in Thy name,* are answered with
the words : I never knew vou. Therefore the gift of under-
standing can be without sanctifying grace.

Obj. 3. Further, The gift of understanding responds
to the virtue of faith, according to Isa. vii. 9, following
another reading!: If you will not believe you shall not
understand. Now faith can be without sanctifying grace.
Therefore the gift of understanding can be without it.

On the contrary. Our Lord said (John vi. 45) : Every one
that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to
Me. Now it is by the intellect, as Gregory observes
(Moral, i.), that we learn or understand what we hear.
Therefore whoever has the gift of understanding, cometh
to Christ, which is impossible without sanctifying grace.
Therefore the gift of understanding cannot be without
sanctifying grace.

* Vulg., — Have we not prophesied in Thy name ?
t The Septuagiiit.

103 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDIN(t Q. 8. Art. 5

I answer that, As stated above (I. -II., Q. LXVIII., AA. i, 2)
the gifts of the Holy Ghost perfect the soul, according as
it is amenable to the motion of the Holy Ghost. Accord-
ingly, then, the intellectual light of grace is called the gift
of understanding, in so far as man's understanding is easily
moved by the Holy Ghost, the consideration of which
movement depends on a true apprehension of the end.
Wherefore unless the human intellect be moved by the Holy
Ghost so far as to have a right estimate of the end, it has
not yet obtained the gift of understanding, however much
the Holy Ghost may have enlightened it in regard to other
truths that are preambles to the faith.

Now to have a right estimate about the last end one
must not be in error about the end, and must adhere to it
firmly as to the greatest good: and no one can do this
without sanctifying grace ; even as in moral matters a man
has a right estimate about the end through a habit of
virtue. Therefore no one has the gift of understanding
without sanctifying grace.

Reply Obj. i. By understanding Augustine means any
kind of intellectual light, that, however, does not fulfil all
the conditions of a gift, unless the mind of man be so far
perfected as to have a right estimate about the end.

Reply Obj. 2. The understanding that is requisite for
prophecy, is a kind of enlightenment of the mind with
regard to the things revealed to the prophet : but it is not
an enlightenment of the mind with regard to a right estimate
about the last end, which belongs to the gift of under-
standing.

Reply Obj. 3. Faith implies merely assent to what is
proposed, but understanding implies a certain perception
of the truth, which perception, except in one who has
sanctifying grace, cannot regard the end., as stated above.
Hence the comparison fails between understanding and
faith.

Q. 8. Art. b THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 104

Sixth Article.

whether the gift of understanding is distinct
from the other gifts ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the gift of understanding is
not distinct from the other gifts. For there is no distinction
between things whose opposites are not distinct. Now
wisdom is contrary to folly, understanding is contrary to
dulness, counsel is contrary to rashness, knowledge is contrary
to ignorance, as Gregory states {Moral, ii.). But there
would seem to be no difference between folly, dulness,
ignorance and rashness. Therefore neither does under-
standing differ from the other gifts.

Obj. 2. Further, The intellectual virtue of understanding
differs from the other intellectual virtues in that it is proper
to it to be about self-evident principles. But the gift
of understanding is not about any self-evident principles,
since the natural habit of first principles suffices in respect
of those matters which are naturally self-evident: while
faith is sufficient in respect of such things as are supernatural,
since the articles of faith are like first principles in super-
natural knowledge, as stated above (Q. I., A. 7). There-
fore the gift of understanding does not differ from the
other intellectual gifts.

Obj. 3. Further, All intellectual knowledge is either
speculative or practical. Now the gift of understanding
is related to both, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore it is
not distinct from the other intellectual gifts, but comprises
them all.

On the contrary, When several things are enumerated
together they must be, in some way, distinct from one
another, because distinction is the origin of number. Now
the gift of understanding is enumerated together with the
other gifts, as appears from Isa. xi. 2. Therefore the gift
of understanding is distinct from the other gifts.

/ answer that, The difference between the gift of under-

105 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Art. 6

standing and three of the others, viz. piety, fortitude, and
fear, is evident, since the gift of understanding belongs to
the cognitive power, while the three others belong to the
appetitive power.

But the difference between this gift of understanding
and the remaining three, viz. wisdom, knowledge, and
counsel, which also belong to the cognitive powder, is not
so evident. To some, it seems that the gift of understanding
differs from the gifts of knowledge and counsel, in that
these two belong to practical knowledge, while the gift of
understanding belongs to speculative knowledge; and that
it differs from the gift of wisdom, which also belongs to
speculative knowledge, in that wisdom is concerned with
judgment, while understanding renders the mind apt to
grasp the things that are proposed, and to penetrate into
their very heart. And in this sense we have assigned the
number of the gifts, above (I.-IL, Q. LXVIIL, A. 4).

But if we consider the matter carefully, the gift of under-
standing is concerned not only with speculative, but also
with practical matters, as stated above (A. 3), and, like-
wise, the gift of knowledge regards both matters, as we shall
show further on (Q. IX., A. 3), and, consequently, we must
take their distinction in some other way. For all these
four gifts are ordained to supernatural knowledge, which,
in us, takes its foundation from faith, '^ow faith is through
hearing (Rom. x. 17). Hence some things must be proposed
to be believed by man, not as seen, but as heard, to which
he assents by faith. Now faith, first and principally, is
about the First Truth, secondarily, about certain con-
siderations concerning creatures, and furthermore extends
to the direction of human actions, in so far as it works
through charity, as appears from what has been said above

(Q.IV., A. 2, ^^3).

Accordingly on the part of the things proposed to faith
for belief, two things are requisite on our part : first that
they be penetrated or grasped by the intellect, and this
belongs to the gift of understanding. Secondly, it is
necessary that man should judge these things aright, that

Q. 8. Akt. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " io6

he should esteem that he ought to adhere to these things,
and to withdraw from their opposites: and this judgment,
with regard to Divine things belongs to the gift of wisdom,
but with regard to created things, belongs to the gift of
knowledge, and as to its application to individual actions,
belongs to the gift of counsel.

Reply Ohj. i . The foregoing difference between those
four gifts is clearly in agreement with the distinction of
those things which Gregory assigns as their opposites.
For dulness is contrary to sharpness, since an intellect is
said, by comparison, to be sharp, when it is able to penetrate
into the heart of the things that are proposed to it. Hence
it is dulness of mind that renders the mind unable to pierce
into the heart of a thing. A man is said to be a fool if he
judges wrongly about the comxmon end of life, wherefore
folly is properly opposed to wisdom, which makes us judge
aright about the universal cause. Ignorance implies a
defect in the mind, even about any particular things what-
ever, so that it is contrary to knowledge, which gives man
a right judgment about particular causes, viz. about
creatures. Rashness is clearly opposed to counsel, whereby
man does not proceed to action before deliberating with his
reason.

Reply Ohj. 2. The gift of understanding is about the first
principles of that knowledge which is conferred by grace;
but otherwise than faith, because it belongs to faith to
assent to them, while it belongs to the gift of understanding
to pierce with the mind the things that are said.

Reply Ohj. 3. The gift of understanding is related to
both kinds of knowledge, viz. speculative and practical,
not as to the judgment, but as to apprehension, by grasping
what is said.

107 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Am. 7

Seventh Article.

whether the sixth beatitude, 'blessed are the clean
of heart,' etc., responds to the gllt of under-
standing ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that the sixth beatitude, Blessed
are the clean of heart, for they shall see God, does not re-
spond to the gift of understanding. Because cleanness
of heart seems to belong chiefly to the appetite. But the
gift of understanding belongs, not to the appetite, but
rather to the intellectual power. Therefore the aforesaid
beatitude does not respond to the gift of understanding.

Ohj. 2. Further, It is written (Acts xv. 9): Purifying
their hearts by faith. Now cleanness of heart is acquired
by the heart being purified. Therefore the aforesaid
beatitude is related to the virtue of faith rather than to
the gift of understanding.

Obj. 3. Further, The gifts of the Holy Ghost perfect man
in the present state of hfe. But the sight of God docs not
belong to the present life, since it is that which gives happi-
ness to the Blessed, as stated above (I. -II., O. III., A. 8).
Therefore the sixth beatitude which comprises the sight of
God, does not respond to the gift of understanding.

On the contrary, Augustine sa^^s (De Serm. Dom. in
monte i.) : The sixth work of the Holy Ghost which is under-
standing,-is applicable to the clean of heart, xvhose eye being
purified, they can see what eye hath not seen.

I answer that, Two things are contained in the sixth
beatitude, as also in the others, one by way of merit, viz.
cleanness of heart; the other by way of reward, viz. the
sight of God, as stated above (I. -II., O. LXIX., AA. 2, 4).
and each of these, in some way, responds to the gift of
understanding.

For cleanness is twofold. One is a preamble and a
disposition to seeing (iod. and consists in the heart being
cleansed of inordinate affections: and this cleanness of heart

g. 8. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " io8

is effected by the virtues and gifts belonging to the appetitive
power. The other cleanness of heart is a kind of comple-
ment to the sight of God ; such is the cleanness of the mind
that is purged of phantasms and errors, so as to receive
the truths which are proposed to it about God, no longer
by way of corporeal phantasms, nor infected with heretical
misrepresentations: and this cleanness is the result of the
gift of understanding.

Again, the sight of God is twofold. One is perfect,
whereby God's Essence is seen: the other is imperfect,
whereby, though we see not what God is, yet we see what
He is not; and whereby, the more perfectly do we know
God in this life, the more we understand that He surpasses
all that the mind comprehends. Each of these visions of
God belongs to the gift of understanding; the first, to the
gift of understanding in its state of perfection, as possessed
in heaven; the second, to the gift of understanding in its
state of inchoation, as possessed by wayfarers.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections : for the
ftrst two arguments refer to the first kind of cleanness;
while the third refers to the perfect vision of God. More-
over the gifts both perfect us in this life by way of inchoation,
and will be fulfilled, as stated above (cf. I. -II., Q. LXIX.,
A. 2).

Eighth Article.

whether faith, among the fruits, responds

to the gift of understanding ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that, among the fruits, faith does
not respond to the gift of understanding. For under-
standing is the fruit of faith, since it is written (Isa. vii. 9)
according to another reading* : // you will not believe you
shall not understand, where our version has: // you will
not believe, you shall not continue. Therefore faith is not
the fruit of understanding.

* The Septiiagint.

109 THE GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING Q. 8. Art. 8

Obj. 2. Further, That which precedes is not the fruit
of what follows. But faith seems to precede understanding,
since it is the foundation of the entire spiritual edifice, as
stated above (Q. IV., AA. i, 7). Therefore faith is not
the fruit of understanding.

Obj. 3. Further, More gifts pertain to the intellect than
to the appetite. Now, among the fruits, only one pertains
to the intellect ; namely, faith, while all the others pertain
to the appetite. Therefore faith, seemingly, does not
pertain to understanding more than to wisdom, knowledge
or counsel.

On the contrary, The end of a thing is its fruit. Now the
gift of understanding seems to be ordained chiefly to the
certitude of faith, which certitude is reckoned a fruit. For
a gloss on Gal. v. 22 says that the faith which is a fruit,
is certitude about the unseen. Therefore faith, among the
fruits, responds to the gift of understanding.

I answer that, The fruits of the Spirit, as stated above
(I. -II., Q. LXX., A. i), when we were discussing them,
are so called because they are something ultimate and
delightful, produced in us by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Now the ultimate and delightful has the nature of an end,
which is the proper object of the will: and consequently
that which is ultimate and delightful with regard to the
will, must be, after a fashion, the fruit of all the other
things that pertain to the other powers.

According, therefore, to this kind of gift or virtue that
perfects a power, we may distinguish a double fruit : one,
belonging to the same power; the other, the last of all as
it were, belonging to the will. In this way we must con-
clude that the fruit which properly responds to the gift
of understanding is faith, i.e. the certitude of faith; while
the fruit that responds to it last of all is joy, which
belongs to the will.

Reply Obj. i. Understanding is the fruit of faith, taken
as a virtue. But we arc not taking faith in this sense here,
but for a kind of certitude of faith, to which man attains
by the gift of understanding.

Q. 8. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " no

Reply Obj. 2. Faith cannot altogether precede under-
standing, for it would be impossible to assent by believing
what is proposed to be believed, without understanding
it in some way. However, the perfection of under-
standing follows the virtue of faith: which perfection of
understanding is itself followed by a kind of certainty
of faith.

Reply Obj. 3. The fruit of practical knowledge cannot
consist in that very knowledge, since knowledge of that
kind is known not for its own sake, but for the sake of
something else. On the other hand, speculative know-
ledge has its fruit in its very self, which fruit is the certitude
about the thing known. Hence the gift of counsel, which
belongs only to practical knowledge, has no corresponding
fruit of its own: while the gifts of wisdom, understanding
and knowledge, which can belong also to speculative
knowledge, have but one corresponding fruit, which is
certainly denoted by the name of faith. The reason why
there are several fruits pertaining to the appetitive faculty,
is because, as already stated, the character of end, which
the word fruit implies, pertains to the appetitive rather
than to the intellective part.

QUESTION IX.

OF THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE.
{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the gift of knowledge, under which
head there are four points of inquiry: (i) Whether know-
ledge is a gift ? (2) Whether it is about Divine things ?
(3) Whether it is speculative or practical ? (4) Which
beatitude responds to it ?

First Article,
whether knowledge is a gift ?

We proceed thus to the First A rticle : —

Objection 1. It seems that knowledge is not a gift. For
the gifts of the Holy Ghost surpass the natural faculty.
But knowledge implies an effect of natural reason: for the
Philosopher says (Poster, i.) that a demonstration is a
syllogism which produces knowledge. Therefore knowledge
is not a gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ohj. 2. Further, The gifts of the Holy Ghost are common
to all holy persons, as stated above (0. VIII., A. 4: I. -II.,
Q. LXVIIL, A. 5). Now Augustine says (De Trin. xiv.)
that many of the faithful lack knowledge though they have
faith. Therefore knowledge is not a gift.

Ohj. 3. Further, The gifts are more perfect than the virtues,
as stated above (I. -II., Q. LXVIIL, A. 8). Therefore one
gift suffices for the perfection of one virtue. Now the
gift of understanding responds to the virtue of faith, as
stated above (Q. VIII. , A. 2). Therefore the gift of know-
ledge does not respond to that virtue, nor does it appear
to which other virtue it can respond. Since, then, the

III

Q. 9. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 112

gifts are perfections of virtues, as stated above (I. -II.,
Q. LXVIII., AA. I, 2), it seems that knowledge is not a

gift.

On the contrary, Knowledge is reckoned among the seven
gifts, Isa. xi. 2.

I answer that, Grace is more perfect than nature, and,
therefore, does not fail in those things wherein man can
be perfected by nature. Now, when a man, by his natural
reason, assents by his intellect to some truth, he is perfected
in two ways in respect of that truth : first, because he grasps
it, secondly, because he forms a sure judgment on it.

Accordingly, two things are requisite in order that the
human intellect may perfectly assent to the truth of the
faith : one of these is that he should have a sound grasp of
the things that are proposed to be believed, and this per-
tains to the gift of understanding, as stated above (Q. VIII.,
A. 6) : while the other is that he should have a sure and
right judgment on them, so as to discern what is to be
believed from what is not to be believed, and for this the
gift of knowledge is required.

Reply Ohj. i. Certitude of knowledge varies in various
natures, according to the various conditions of each nature.
Because man forms a sure judgment about a truth by the
discursive process of his reason: and so human knowledge
is acquired by means of demonstrative reasoning. On
the other hand, in God, there is a sure judgment of truth,
without any discursive process, by simple intuition, as was
stated in the First Part (Q. XIV., A. 7) ; wherefore God's
knowledge is not discursive, or argumentative, but absolute
and simple, to which that knowledge is likened which is
a gift of the Holy Ghost, since it is a participated likeness
thereof.

Reply Ohj. 2. A twofold knowledge .may be had about
matters of belief. One is the knowledge of what one ought
to believe, by discerning things to be believed from things
not to be believed: in this way knowledge is a gift and is
common to all holy persons. The other is a knowledge
about matters of belief, whereby one knows not only what

113 THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE Q. 9. Art 2

one ought to believe, but also how to make the faith known,
how to induce others to believe, and confute those who
deny the faith. This knowledge is numbered among the
gratuitous graces, which are not given to all, but to some.
Hence Augustine, after the words quoted, adds: It is one
thing for a man merely to knoiej what he ought to believe,
and another to know how to dispense what he believes to the
godly, and to defend it against the ungodly.

Reply Obj. 3. The gifts are more perfect than the moral
and intellectual virtues; but they are not more perfect
than the theological virtues; rather are all the gifts ordained
to the perfection of the theological virtues, as to their end.
Hence it is not unreasonable if several gifts are ordained
to one theological virtue.

Second Article,
whether the gift of knowledge is about divine

THINGS ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the gift of knowledge is about
Divine things. For Augustine says (De Trin. xiv.) that
knowledge begets, nourishes and strengthens faith. Now
faith is about Divine things, because its object is the First
Truth, as stated above (Q. I., A. i). Therefore the gift of
knowledge also is about Divine things.

Obj. 2. Further, The gift of knowledge is more excellent
than acquired knowledge. But there is an acquired
knowledge about Divine things, for instance, the science
of metaphysics. Much more therefore is the gift of
knowledge about Divine things.

Obj. 3. Further, According to Rom. i. 20, the invisible
things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made. If therefore there is knowledge
about created things, it seems that there is also knowledge
of Divine things.

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Trin. xiv.): The

knowledge of Divine things may be properly called ivisdom,
II. ii. I 8

Q. 9. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 114

and the knowledge of human affairs may properly receive
the name of knowledge.

I answer that, A sure judgment about a thing is formed
chiefly from its cause, and so the order of judgments should
be according to the order of causes. For just as the first
cause is the cause of the second, so ought the judgment
about a second cause to be formed through the first cause :
nor is it possible to judge of the first cause through any
other cause; wherefore the judgment which is formed
through the first cause, is the first and most perfect judg-
ment.

Now in those things where we find something most perfect,
the common name of the genus is appropriated for those
things which fall short of the most perfect, and some special
name is adapted to the most perfect thing, as is the case
in Logic. For in the genus of convertible terms, that
which signifies what a thing is, is given the special name
of definition, but the convertible terms which fall short
of this, retain the common name, and are called proper
terms.

Accordingly, since the word knowledge implies certitude
of judgment, as stated above (A. i), if this certitude of the
judgment is derived from the highest cause, the knowledge
has a special name, which is wisdom: for a wise man in
any branch of knowledge is one who knows the highest cause
of that kind of knowledge, and is able to judge of all matters
by that cause: and a wise man absolutely, is one who knows
the cause which is absolutely highest, namely God. Hence
the knowledge of Divine things is called wisdom, while the
knowledge of human things is called knowledge, this being
the common name denoting certitude of judgment, and
appropriated to the judgment which is formed through
second causes. Accordingly, if we take knowledge in this
way, it is a distinct gift from the gift of' wisdom, so that the
gift of knowledge is only about human or created things.

Reply Ohj. i. Although matters of faith are Divine and
eternal, yet faith itself is something temporal in the mind
of the believer. Hence to know what one ought to believe,

115 THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE Q. 9. Art. 3

belongs to the gift of knowledge, but to know in themselves
the very things we believe, by a kind of union with them,
belongs to the gift of wisdom. Therefore the gift of wisdom
corresponds more to charity which unites man's mind
to God.

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument takes knowledge in the
generic acceptation of the term: it is not thus that knowledge
is a special gift, but according as it is restricted to judgments
formed through created things.

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (Q. L, A. i), every cogni-
tive habit regards formally the mean through which things
are known, and materially, the things that are known
through the mean. And since that which is formal, is of
most account, it follows that those sciences which draw
conclusions about physical matter from mathematical
principles, are reckoned rather among the mathematical
sciences, though, as to their matter they have more in
common with physical sciences: and for this reason it is
stated in Phys. ii. that they are more akin to physics.
Accordingly, since man knows God through His creatures,
this seems to pertain to knowledge, to which it belongs
formally, rather than to wisdom, to which it belongs
materially: and, conversely, when we judge of creatures
according to Divine things, this pertains to wisdom rather
than to knowledge.

Third Article.

whether the gift of knowledge is practical

knowledge ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the knowledge, which is
numbered among the gifts, is practical knowledge. For
Augustine says [De Trin. xii.) that knowledge is concerned
with the actions in which we make use of external things.
But the knowledge which is concerned about actions is
practical. Therefore the gift of knowledge is practical.

o. 9. Akt. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " ii6

Obj. 2. Further, Gregory says (Moral, i.): Knowledge is
nought if it hath not its use for piety, . . . and piety is very
useless if it lacks the discernment of knowledge. Now it
follows from this authority that knowledge directs piety.
But this cannot apply to a speculative science. Therefore
the gift of knowledge is not speculative but practical.

Obj. 3. Further, The gifts of the Holy Ghost are only in
the righteous, as stated above (Q. IX., A. 5). But specula-
tive knowledge can be also in the unrighteous, according
to James iv. 17: To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and
doth it not, to him it is a sin. Therefore the gift of knowledge
is not speculative but practical.

On the contrary, Gregory says [Moral, i.): Knowledge on
her own day prepares a feast, because she overcomes the fast
of ignorance in the mind. Now ignorance is not entirely
removed, save by both kinds of knowledge, viz. speculative
and practical. Therefore the gift of knowledge is both
speculative and practical.

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. IX., A. 8), the gift
of knowledge, like the gift of understanding, is ordained to
the certitude of faith. Now faith consists primarily and
principally in speculation, in as much as it is founded on
the First Truth. But since the First Truth is also the last
end for the sake of which our works are done, hence it is
that faith extends to works, according to Gal. v. 6: Faith
. . . worketh by charity.

The consequence is that the gift of knowledge also,
primarily and principally indeed, regards speculation, in
so far as man knows what he ought to hold by faith; yet,
secondarily, it extends to works, since we are directed in
our actions by the knowledge of matters of faith, and of
conclusions drawn therefrom.

Reply Obj. i. Augustine is speaking of the gift of know-
ledge, in so far as it extends to works; for action is ascribed
to knowledge, yet not action solely, nor primarily: and in
this way it directs piety.

Hence the Reply to the Second Objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 3. As we have already stated (Q. VIII., A. 5)

117 THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE Q. 9. Art. 4

about the gift of understanding, not everyone who under-
stands, has the gift of understanding, but only he that
understands through a habit of grace : and so we must take
note, with regard to the gift of knowledge, that they alone
have the gift of knowledge, who judge aright about matters
of faith and action, through the grace bestowed on them,
so as never to wander from the straight path of justice.
This is the knowledge of holy things, according to Wis.
X. 10 : She conducted the just . . . through the right ways . . .
and gave him the knowledge of 'holy things.

Fourth Article,
whether the third beatitude, ' blessed are they
that mourn,' etc., corresponds to the (ilft of
knowledge ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — •

Objection i. It seems that the third- beatitude. Blessed
are they that mourn, does not correspond to the gift of
knowledge. For, even as evil is the cause of sorrow and
grief, so is good the cause of joy. Now knowledge brings
good to light rather than evil, since the latter is known
through evil : for the straight line rules both itself and the
crooked line (De Anima i.). Therefore the aforesaid
beatitude does not suitably correspond to the gift of know-
ledge.

Obj. 2. Further, Consideration of truth is an act of know-
ledge. Now there is no sorrow in the consideration of
truth; rather is there joy, since it is written (Wis. viii. 16):
Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any
tediousness, but joy and gladness. Therefore the aforesaid
beatitude does not suitably correspond with the gift of
knowledge.

Obj. 3. Further, The gift of knowledge consists in specula-
tion, before operation. Now, in so far as it consists in
speculation, sorrow does not correspond to it, since the
speculative intellect is not concerned about things to besought

Q. 9. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 118

or avoided [De Anima iii.). Therefore the aforesaid beati-
tude is not suitably reckoned to correspond with the gift
of knowledge.

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Serm. Dom. in monte
iv.): Knowledge befits the mourner, who has discovered that
he has been mastered by the evil which he coveted as though it
were good.

I answer that, Right judgment about creatures belongs
properly to knowledge. Now it is through creatures that
man's aversion from God is occasioned, according to
Wis. xiv. 11: Creatures . . . are turned to an abomination
. . . and a snare to the feet of the unwise, of those, namely,
who do not judge aright about creatures, since they deem
the perfect good to consist in them. Hence they sin by
placing their last end in themx, and lose the true good. It
is by forming a right judgment of creatures that man
becomes aware of the loss (of which they may be the
occasion), which judgment he exercises through the gift
of knowledge.

Hence the beatitude of sorrow is said to correspond to
the gift of knowledge.

Reply Obj. i. Created goods do not cause spiritual joy,
except in so far as they are referred to the Divine good,
which is the proper cause of spiritual joy. Hence spiritual
peace and the resulting joy correspond directly to the gift
of wisdom: but to the gift of knowledge there corresponds,
in the first place, sorrow for past errors, and, in consequence,
consolation, since, by his right judgment, man directs
creatures to the Divine good. For this reason sorrow is
set forth in this beatitude, as the merit, and the resulting
consolation, as the reward; which is begun in this life, and
is perfected in the life to come.

Reply Obj. 2. Man rejoices in the very consideration of
truth; yet he may sometimes grieve for the thing, the
truth of which he considers : it is thus that sorrow is ascribed
to knowledge.

Reply Obj. 3. No beatitude corresponds to knowledge,
in so far as it consists in speculation, because man's beati-

119 THE GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE Q. 9. Art. 4

tude consists, not in considering creatures, but in contemplat-
ing God. But man's beatitude does consist somewhat in
the right use of creatures, and in well-ordered love of them :
and this I say with regard to the beatitude of a wayfarer.
Hence beatitude relating to contemplation is not ascribed
to knowledge, but to understanding and wisdom, which are
about Divine things.

QUESTION X.

OF UNBELIEF IN GENERAL.

{In Twelve Articles.)

In due sequence we must consider the contrary vices:
first, unbelief, which is contrary to faith; secondly, blas-
phemy, which is opposed to confession of faith; thirdly,
ignorance and dulness of mind, which are contrary to
knowledge and understanding.
As to the first, we must consider (i) Unbelief in general:

(2) heresy: (3) apostasy from the faith.

Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:
(i) Whether unbelief is a sin ? (2) What is its subject ?

(3) Whether it is the greatest of sins ? (4) Whether
every action of unbelievers is a sin ? (5) Of the species
of unbelief: (6) Of their comparison, one with another:
(7) Whether we ought to dispute about faith with un-
believers ? (8) W^hether they ought to be compelled to
the faith ? (9) Whether we ought to have communications
with them ? (10) WTiether unbelievers can have authority
over Christians ? (11) Whether the rites of unbelievers
should be tolerated ? (12) Whether the children of un-
believers are to be baptized against their parents' will ?

First Article,
whether unbelief is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : — -

Objection 1. It seems that unbelief is not a sin. For
every sin is contrary to nature, as Damascene proves
{De Fide Orthod. ii.). Now unbelief seems not to be con-
trary to nature; for Augustine says (De PrcBdest. Sand, v.)

T20

121 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. i

that to he capable of having faith, just as to be capable of
having charity, is natural to all men ; whereas to have faith,
even as to have charity, belongs to the grace of the faithful.
Therefore not to have faith, which is to be an unbeliever,
is not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, No one sins in that which he cannot
avoid, since every sin is voluntary. Now it is not in a man's
power to avoid unbelief, for he cannot avoid it unless he
have faith, because the Apostle says (Rom. x. 14): How
shall they believe in Him, of Whom they have not heard ?
And how shall they hear without a preacher ? Therefore
unbelief does not seem to be a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, As stated above (I.-IL, Q. LXXXIV.,
A. 4), there are seven capital sins, to which all sins are
reduced. But unbelief does not seem to be comprised
under any of them. Therefore unbelief is not a sin.

On the contrary. Vice is opposed to virtue. Now faith is
a virtue, and unbelief is opposed to it. Therefore unbelief
is a sin.

/ answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways; first,
by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an un-
believer, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly,
unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith;
in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises
it, according to Isa. liii. i: Who hath believed our report?
It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is
in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we
find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith,
it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because
suchlike ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin
of our first parent. If suchlike unbelievers are damned, it
is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away
without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.
Hence Our Lord said (John xv. 22): // / had not come,
and spoken to them, thcyivould not have sin ; which Augustine
expounds (Tract. Ixxxix. /;/ Joan.) as referring to the sin
whereby thev believed not in Christ.

Q. lo. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 122

Reply Ohj. i. To have the faith is not part of human
nature, but it is part of human nature that man's mind
should not thwart his inner instinct, and the outward
preaching of the truth. Hence, in this way, unbelief is
contrary to nature.

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument takes unbelief as denoting
a pure negation.

Reply Ohj. 3. Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from
pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect
to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of
the Fathers. Hence Gregory says [Moral, xxxi.) that
presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory.

It might also be replied that just as the theological
virtues are not reduced to the cardinal virtues, but precede
them, so too, the vices opposed to the theological virtues
are not reduced to the capital vices.

Second Article,
whether unbelief is in the intellect as its

SUBJECT ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — •

Ohjection i. It seems that unbelief is not in the intellect
as its subject. For every sin is in the will, according to
Augustine [De duahus Anim. x., xi.). Now unbelief is a
sin, as stated above (A. i). Therefore unbelief resides in
the will and not in the intellect.

Ohj. 2. Further, Unbelief is sinful through contempt of
the preaching of faith. But contempt pertains to the will.
Therefore unbelief is in the will.

Ohj. 3. Further, A gloss on 2 Cor. xi. 14, Satan . . .
transformeth himself into an angel of light, says (cf. Augustine,
Enchiridion Ix.) that if a wicked angel pretend to he a good
angel, and he taken for a good angel, it is not a dangerous or
an unhealthy error, if he does or says what is hecoming to a
good angel. This seems to be because of the rectitude of the
will of the man who adheres to the angel, since his intention
is to adhere to a good angel. Therefore the sin of unbelief

123 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 3

seems to consist entirely in a perverse will: and, conse-
quently, it does not reside in the intellect.

On the contrary, Things which are contrary to one another
are in the same subject. Now faith, to which unbelief
is opposed, resides in the intellect. Therefore unbelief also
is in the intellect.

/ answer that, As stated above (I.-IL, O. LXXIV.,
A A. I, 2), sin is said to be in the power which is the principle
of the sinful act. Now a sinful act may have two principles :
one is its first and universal principle, which commands
all acts of sin; and this is the will, because every sin is
voluntary. The other principle of the sinful act is the
proper and proximate principle which elicits the sinful act :
thus the concupiscible is the principle of gluttony and lust,
wherefore these sins are said to be in the concupiscible.
Now dissent, which is the act proper to unbelief, is an act
of the intellect, moved, however, by the will, just as assent is.

Therefore unbelief, like faith, is in the intellect as its
proximate subject. But it is in the will as its first moving
principle, in which way every sin is said to be in the will.

Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 2. The will's contempt causes the intellect's dis-
sent, which completes the notion of unbelief. Hence the cause
of unbelief is in the will, while unbelief itself is in the intellect.

Reply Obj. 3. He that believes a wicked angel to be a
good one, does not dissent from a matter of faith, because
his bodily senses are deceived, while his mind does not depart
from a true and right judgment, as the gloss observes (ibid.)^
But, according to the same authority, to adhere to Satan
when he begins to invite one to his abode, i.e. wickedness
and error, is not without sin.

Third Article.

whether unbelief is the greatest of sins ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —
Objection 1. It seems that unbelief is not the greatest of
sins. For Augustine says (De Bapt. contra Donat. iv.):

Q. lo. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 124

/ should hesitate to decide whether a very wicked catholic
ought to he preferred to a heretic, in whose life one finds nothing
reprehensible beyond the fact that he is a heretic. But a
heretic is an unbeliever. Therefore we ought not to say
absohitely that unbelief is the greatest of sins.

Ohj. 2. Further, That which diminishes or excuses a sin,
is not, seemingly, the greatest of sins. Now unbelief
excuses or diminishes sin: for the Apostle says (i Tim.
i. 12, 13) : / . . . before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor,
and contumelious ; but I obtained . . . mercy . . ., because
I did it ignorantly in my unbelief. Therefore unbelief is
not the greatest of sins.

Obj. 3. Further, The greater sin deserves the greater
punishment, according to Deut. xxv. 2: According to the
measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be.
Now a greater punishment is due to believers than to un-
believers, according to Heb. x. 29: How much more, do you
think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the
testament unclean, by which he was sanctified ? Therefore
unbelief is not the greatest of sins.

On the contrary, Augustine, commenting on John xv. 22,
If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have
sin, says (Tract. Ixxxix. in Joan.): Under the general name.
He refers to a singularly great sin. For this [viz. infidelity)
is the sin to which all others may be traced. Therefore un-
belief is the greatest of sins.

/ answer that, Ev^ery sin consists formally in aversion from
God, as stated above (I.-IL, Q. LXXL, A. 6: Q. LXXIII.,
A. 3). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the
graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from
God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge
of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not
approach Him, but is severed from Him.

Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God,
to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his
opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of
unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the per-

125 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 4

version of morals. This does not apply to the sins that
are opposed to the theological virtues, as we shall state
further on (Q. XX., A. 3: Q. XXXIV., A. 2, ad 2: Q.
XXXIX., A. 2, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 1. Nothing hinders a sin, that is more grave
in its genus, from being less grave in respect of some cir-
cumstances. Hence Augustine hesitated to decide between
a bad catholic, and a heretic not sinning otherwise, because,
although the heretic's sin is more grave generically, it can be
lessened by a circumstance, and, conversely, the sin of the
catholic can, by some circumstance, be aggravated.

Reply Obj. 2. Unbelief includes both ignorance, as an
accessory thereto, and resistance to matters of faith, and in
the latter respect it is a most grave sin. In respect, how-
ever, of this ignorance, it has a certain reason for excuse,
especially when a man sins not from malice, as was the case
with the Apostle.

Reply Obj. 3. An unbeliever is more severely punished
for his sin of unbelief than another sinner is for any sin
whatever, if we consider the kind of sin. But in the case
of another sin, e.g. adultery, committed by a believer, and
by an unbeliever, the believer, other things being equal,
sins more gravely than the unbeliever, both on account of
his knowledge of the truth through faith, and on account
of the sacraments of faith with which he has been satiated,
and which he insults by committing sin.

Fourth Article,
whether every act of an unbeliever is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that each act of an unbeliever is
a sin. Because a gloss on Rom. xiv. 23, All that is not 0,
faith is sin, says: The whole life of unbelievers is a sin. Now
the life of unbelievers consists of their actions. Therefore
every action of an unbeliever is a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Faith directs the intention. Now there
can bo no good save what couk's from a right intention.
Therefore, among unbelie\'ers, no action can be good.

Q. 10. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 126

Obj. 3. Further, When that which precedes is corrupted,
that which follows is corrupted also. Now an act of faith
precedes the acts of all the virtues. Therefore, since there
is no act of faith in unbelievers, they can do no good work,
but sin in every action of theirs.

On the contrary, It is said of Cornelius, while yet an un-
believer (Acts X. 4, 31), that his alms were acceptable to
God. Therefore not every action of an unbeliever is a sin,
but some of his actions are good.

/ answer that, As stated above (L-IL, Q. LXXXV.,
AA. 2, 4) mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does
not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore,
unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace
indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Conse-
quently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good
works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works;
yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for
which the good of nature suffices.

Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they
do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief,
then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can
commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does
not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a
good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end
of his unbelief.

Reply Obj. i. The words quoted must be taken to mean
either that the life of unbelievers cannot be sinless, since
without faith no sin is taken away, or that whatever they
do out of unbelief, is a sin. Hence the same authority adds :
Because every one that lives or acts according to his unbelief,
sins grievously.

Reply Obj. 2. Faith directs the intention with regard to
the supernatural last end: but even the light of n i;ral
reason can direct the intention in respect of a connatural
good.

Reply Obj. 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural
reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth
remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that

127 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 5

are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius,
it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his
works would not have been acceptable to God, Whom none
can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as
the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence
Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the
faith.

Fifth Article,
whether there are several species of unbelief ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that there are not several species
of unbelief. For, since faith and unbelief are contrary to
one another, they must be about the same thing. Now
the formal object of faith is the First Truth, whence it
derives its unity, although its matter contains many points
of belief. Therefore the object of unbelief also is the First
Truth; while the things which an unbeliever disbelieves
are the matter of his unbelief. Now the specific difference
depends not on material but on formal principles. There-
fore there are not several species of unbelief, according
to the various points which the unbeliever disbelieves.

Ohj. 2. Further, It is possible to stray from the truth of
faith in an infinite number of ways. If therefore the
various species of unbelief correspond to the number of
various errors, it would seem to follow that there is an
infinite number of species of unbelief, and consequently,
that we ought not to make these species the object of our
consideration.

Ohj. 3. Further, The same thing does not belong to
different species. Now a man may be an unbeliever through
erring about different points of faith. Therefore diversity
of errors does not make a diversity of species of unbelief:
and so there are not several species of unbelief.

On the contrary, Several species of vice are opposed to
each virtue, because good happens in one way, hut evil in
many ways, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv.) and the

Q. lo. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 128

Philosopher (Ethic, ii.). Now faith is a virtue. Therefore
several species of vice are opposed to it.

/ answer that, As stated above (I. -I I., Q. LV., A. 4:
0. LXIV., A. i), every virtue consists in following some
rule of human knowledge or operation. Now conformity
to a rule happens one way in one matter, whereas a breach
of the rule happens in many ways, so that many vices are
opposed to one virtue. The diversity of the vices that are
opposed to each virtue may be considered in two ways,
first, with regard to their different relations to the virtue:
and in this way there are determinate species of vices
contrary to a virtue: thus to a moral virtue one vice is
opposed by exceeding the virtue, and another, by falling
short of the virtue. Secondly, the diversity of vices
opposed to one virtue may be considered in respect of the
corruption of the various conditions required for that
virtue. In this way an infinite number of vices are opposed
to one virtue, e.g. temperance or fortitude, according to
the infinite number of ways in which the various circum-
stances of a virtue may be corrupted, so that the rectitude
of virtue is forsaken. For this reason the Pythagoreans
held evil to be infinite.

Accordingly we must say that if unbelief be considered
in comparison to faith, there are several species of unbelief,
determinate in number. For, since the sin of unbelief
consists in resisting the faith, this may happen in two
ways; either the faith is resisted before it has been
accepted, and such is the unbelief of pagans or heathens;
or the Christian faith is resisted after it has been accepted,
and this either in the figure, and such is the unbelief of
the Jews, or in the very manifestation of truth, and such
is the unbelief of heretics. Hence we may, in a general
way, reckon these three as species of unbelief.

If, however, the species of unbelief be distinguished
according to the various errors that occur in matters of
faith, there are not determinate species of unbelief: for
errors can be multiplied indefinitely, as Augustine observes
[Dc HcBresibus).

129 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 6

Reply Obj. i. The formal aspect of a sin can be considered
in two ways. First, according to the intention of the sinner,
in which case the thing to which the sinner turns is the
iormal object of his sin, and determines the various species
of that sin. Secondly, it may be considered as an evil,
and in this case the good which is forsaken is the formal
object of the sin; which, however, does not derive its species
from this point of view, in fact it is a privation. We must
therefore reply that the object of unbelief is the First
Truth considered as that which unbelief forsakes, but its
formal aspect, considered as that to which unbelief turns,
is the false opinion that it follows : and it is from this point
of view that unbelief derives its various species. Hence,
even as charity is one, because it adheres to the Sovereign
Good, while there are various species of vice opposed
to charity, which turn away from the Sovereign Good by
turning to various temporal goods, and also in respect of
various inordinate relations to God, so too, faith is one
virtue through adhering to the one First Truth, yet there
are many species of unbelief, because unbelievers follow
many false opinions.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument considers the various
species of unbelief according to various points in which
errors occur.

Reply Obj. 3. Since faith is one because it believes in
many things in relation to one, so may unbelief, although it
errs in many things, be one in so far as all those things are
related to one. Yet nothing hinders one man from erring
in various species of unbelief, even as one man may be subject
to various vices, and to various bodily diseases.

Sixth Article.

whether the unbelief of pagans or heathens is
graver than other kinds ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —
Objection i. It seems that the unbelief of heathens or
pagans is graver than other kinds. For just as bodily
n. ii. I 9

Q. lo. Art. 0 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 130

disease is graver, according as it endangers the health
of a more important member of the body, so does sin appear
to be graver, according as it is opposed to that which holds
a more important place in virtue. Now that which is
most important in faith, is belief in the unity of God, from
which the heathens deviate by believing in many gods.
Therefore their unbelief is the gravest of all.

Obj. 2. Further, Among heresies, the more detestable are
those which contradict the truth of faith in more numerous
and more important points: thus the heresy of Arius,
who severed the Godhead, was more detestable than that
of Nestorius who severed the humanity of Christ from the
Person of God the Son. Now the heathens deny the faith
in more numerous and more important points than Jews
and heretics; since they do not accept the faith at all.
Therefore their unbelief is the gravest.

Obj. 3. Further, Every good diminishes evil. Now there
is some good in the Jews, since they believe in the Old
Testament as being from God, and there is some good in
heretics, since they venerate the New Testament. There-
fore they sin less grievously than heathens, who receive
neither Testament.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Pet. ii. 21): It had been
better for them not to have known the way of justice, than
after they have known it, to turn back. Now the heathens
have not known the way of justice, whereas heretics and
Jews have abandoned it after knowing it in some way.
Therefore theirs is the graver sin.

/ answer that. As stated above (A. 5), two things may be
considered in unbelief. One of these is its relation to faith:
and from this point of view, he who resists the faith after
accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he
who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who
fails to fulfil what he has promised, sins more grievously
than if he had never promised it. In this way the unbelief
of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and
resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin
tluin thiit of the Jews, who have never accepted the (iospel

131 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 7

faith. Since, however, they accepted the figure of that
faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false
interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than
that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted
the Gospel faith in any way at all.

The second thing to be considered in unbelief is the
corruption of matters of faith. In this respect, since
heathens err on more points than Jews, and these in more
points than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more
grievous than the unbelief of the Jews, and that of the
Jews than that of heretics, except in such cases as that
of the Manichees, who, in matters of faith, err even more
than heathens do.

Of these two gravities the first surpasses the second from
the point of view of guilt; since, as stated above (A. i)
unbelief has the character of guilt, from its resisting faith
rather than from the mere absence of faith, for the latter,
as was stated (ibid.) seems rather to bear the character of
punishment. Hence, speaking absolutely, the unbelief of
lieretics is the worst.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Seventh Article.

whether one ought to dispute with unbelievers

in public ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that one ought hot to dispute with
unbelievers in public. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. ii. 14) :
Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting
of the hearers. But it is impossible to dispute with un-
believers publicly without contending in words. Therefore
one ought not to dispute publicly with unbelievers.

Obj. 2. Further, The law of Martianus Augustus con-
firmed by the canons (De StDn. Trin., Cod. lib. i., leg.
Nemo) expresses itself thus: It is an insult to the judgment
of the most religious synod, if anyone ventures to debate
or dispute in public about mattcn; wJiich have once been

Q 10. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 132

judged and disposed of. Now all matters of faith have been
decided by the holy councils. Therefore it is an insult to
the councils, and consequently a grave sin to presume to
dispute in public about matters of faith.

Ohj. 3. Further, Disputations are conducted by means
of arguments. But an argument is a reason in settlement
of a dubious matter: whereas things that are of faith,
being most certain, ought not to be a matter of doubt.
Therefore one ought not to dispute in public about matters
of faith.

On the contrary, It is written (Acts ix. 22, 29) that Saul
increased much more in strength, and confounded the Jews,
and that he spoke . . . to the gentiles and disputed with
the Greeks.

I answer that. In disputing about the faith, two things
must be observed; one on the part of the disputant, the
other on the part of his hearers. On the part of the dispu-
tant, we must consider his intention. For if he were to
dispute as though he had doubts about the faith, and did
not hold the truth of faith for certain, and as though he
intended to probe it with arguments, without doubt he
would sin, as being doubtful of the faith and an un-
believer. On the other hand, it is praiseworthy to dispute
about the faith in order to confute errors, or for practice.
On the part of the hearers we must consider whether
those who hear the disputation are instructed and firm in
the faith, or simple and wavering. As to those who are
well instructed and firm in the faith, there can be no danger
in disputing about the faith in their presence. But as
to simple-minded people, we must make a distinction;
because either they are provoked and molested by un-
believers, for instance Jews or heretics, or pagans who
strive to corrupt the faith in them, or else they are not
subject to provocation in this matter, as in those countries
where there are no unbelievers. In the first case it is
necessary to dispute in public about the faith, provided there
be those who are equal and adapted to the task of confuting
errors; since in this way simple people are strengthened in

133 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 8

the faith, and unbelievers are deprived of the opportunity
to deceive, while if those who ought to withstand the
perverters of the truth of faith were silent, this would
tend to strengthen error. Hence Gregory says (Pastor, ii.):
Even as a thoughtless speech gives rise to error, so does an
indiscreet silence leave those in error who might have been
instructed. On the other hand, in the second case it is
dangerous to dispute in public about the faith, in the pres-
ence of simple people, whose faith for this very reason is
more firm, that they have never heard anything differing
from what they believe. Hence it is not expedient for them
to hear what unbelievers have to say against the faith.

Reply Obj. i. The Apostle does not entirely forbid
disputations, but such as are inordinate, and consist of
contentious words rather than of sound speeches.

Reply Obj. 2. That law forbade those public disputations
about the faith, which arise from doubting the faith, but
not those which are for the safeguarding thereof.

Reply Obj. 3. One ought to dispute about matters of faith,
not as though one doubted about them, but in order to
make the truth known, and to confute errors. For, in
order to confirm the faith, it is necessary sometimes to
dispute with unbelievers, sometimes by defending the faith,
according to i Pet. iii. 15: Being ready always to satisfy
everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope and faith which
is in you.* Sometimes again, it is necessary, in order to
convince those who are in error, according to Tit. i. 9:
That he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to con-
vince the gainsayers.

Eighth Article.

whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to

the faith ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —
Objection 1. It seems that unbelievers ought by no means
to be compelled to the faith. For it is written (Matth.
* Vulg., — Of that hope which is i)i you.

Q. lo. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 134

xiii. 28) that the servants of the householder, in whose field
cockle had been sown, asked him : Wilt thou that we go and
gather it up ? and that he answered : No, lest perhaps gather-
ing up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it :
on which passage Chrysostom says [Horn, xlvii. in Matth.):
Our Lord says this so as to forbid the slaying of men. For it
is not right to slay heretics, because if you do you will neces-
sarily slay many innocent persons. Therefore it seems that
for the same reason unbelievers ought not to be compelled
to the faith.

Obj. 2. Further, We read in the Decretals {Dist. xlv.,
Can., De Judceis): The holy synod prescribes, with regard to
the Jews, that for the future, none are to be compelled to
believe. Therefore, in like manner, neither should unbelievers
be compelled to the faith.

Obj. 3. Further, Augustine says [Tract, xxvi. in Joan.)
that it is possible for a man to do other things against his will,
but he cannot believe unless he is willing. But the will
cannot be compelled. Therefore it seems that unbelievers
ought not to be compelled to the faith.

Obj. 4. It is said in God's person (Ezech. xviii. 32):
/ desire not the death of the sinner (Vulg., — of him that dieth).
Now we ought to conform our will to the Divine will, as
stated above (I. -IE, 0. XIX., AA. 9, 10). Therefore we
should not even wish unbelievers to be put to death.

On the contrary. It is written (Euke xiv. 23) : Go out into
the highways and hedges ; and compel them to come in. Now
men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy Church,
by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the
faith.

/ answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who
have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the
Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the
faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe
depends on the will : nevertheless they should be compelled
by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do
not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their
evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is

135 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 8

for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with
unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to
believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and
take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to
believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from
hindering the faith of Christ.

On the other hand, there are imbelievers who at some
time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as
heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even
to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have
promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.

Reply Ohj. i. Some have understood the authority
quoted to forbid, not the excommunication but the slaying
of heretics, as appears from the words of Chrysostom.
Augustine too, says [Ep. ad Vincentian. xciii.) of himself:
It was once my opinion that none should he compelled to
union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight
with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone,
not by words of contradiction, but by convincing examples.
Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say :
Thanks be to the Lord Who has broken our chains asunder.
Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord's words. Suffer both
to grow until the harvest, must be gathered from those which
precede, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up
the wheat also together with it. For, as Augustine says
{Contra Ep. Parmen. iii.) these ivords show that when this
is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man's crime is so
publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders,
or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline
should not slacken.

Reply Ohj. 2. Those Jews who have in no way received
the faith, ought by no means to be compelled to the faith:
if, however, they have received it, they ought to be compelled
to keep it, as is stated in the same chapter.

Reply Ohj. 3. Just as taking a vow is a matter of will,
and keeping a vow, a matter of obligation, so acceptance
of the faith is a matter of the will, whereas keeping the faith,
when once one has received it, is a mitter of obligation.

Q. lo. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 136

Wherefore heretics should be compelled to keep the faith.
Thus Augustine says to the Count Boniface [Ep. clxxxv.):
What do these people mean by crying out continually that
we may believe or not believe just as we choose ? Whom did
Christ compel ? They should remember that Christ at first
compelled Paul and afterwards taught him.

Reply Obj. 4. As Augustine says in the same letter,
none of us wishes any heretic to perish. But the house of
David did not deserve to have peace, unless his son Absalom
had been killed in the war which he had raised against his
father. Thus if the Catholic Church gathers together some
to the perdition of others, she heals the sorrow of her maternal
heart by the delivery of so many nations.

Ninth Article.

whether it is lawful to communicate with
unbelievers ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is lawful to communicate
with unbelievers. For the Apostle says (i Cor. x. 27) : // any
of them that believe not, invite you, and you be willing to go,
eat of anything that is set before you. And Chrysostom says
{Hom. XXV. Super Epist. ad Heb.): If you wish to go to dine
with pagans, we permit it without any reservation. Now
to sit at table with anyone is to communicate with him.
Therefore it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers.

Obj. 2. Further, The Apostle says (i Cor. v. 12): What
have I to do to judge them that are without? Now un-
believers are without. When, therefore, the Church forbids
the faithful to communicate with certain people, it seems
that they ought not to be forbidden to communicate with
unbelievers.

Obj. 3. Further, K master cannot employ his servant,
unless he communicate with him, at least by word, since
the master moves his servant by command. Now Christians
can have unbelievers, either Jews, or pagans, or Saracens,

137 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 9

for servants. Therefore they can lawfully communicate
with them.

On the contrary, It is written (Deut. vii. 2, 3): Thou shalt
make no league with them, nor show mercy to them ; neither
shalt thou make marriages with them : and a gloss on Levit.
XV. 19, The woman who at the return of the month, etc., says:
It is so necessary to shun idolatry, that we should not come
in touch with idolaters or their disciples, nor have any dealings
with them.

I answer that, Communication with a particular person
is forbidden to the faithful, in two ways: first, as a punish-
ment of the person with whom they are forbidden to com-
municate ; secondly, for the safety of those who are forbidden
to communicate with others. Both motives can be gathered
from the Apostle's words (i Cor. v. 6). For after he had
pronounced sentence of excommunication, he adds as his
reason : Know you not that a little leaven corrupts the whole
lump ? and afterwards he adds the reason on the part of
the punishment inflicted by the sentence of the Church
when he says [verse 12): Do not you judge them that are
within ?

Accordingly, in the first way the Church does not forbid
the faithful to communicate with unbelievers, who have
not in any way received the Christian faith, viz. with
pagans and Jews, because she has not the right to exercise
spiritual judgment over them, but only temporal judgment,
in the case when, while dwelling among Christians they
are guilty of some misdemeanour, and are condemned by
the faithful to some temporal punishment. On the other
hand, in this way, i.e. as a punishment, the Church forbids
the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who
have forsaken the faith they once received, either by
corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing
the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces
sentence of excommunication on both.

With regard to the second way, it seems that one ought
to distinguish according to the various conditions of
persons, circumstances and time. For some are firm in

Q. lo. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 138

the faith; and so it is to be hoped that their communi-
cating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the
latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from
the faith. These are not to be forbidden to communicate
with unbelievers who have not received the faith, such as
pagans or Jews, especially if there be some urgent necessity
for so doing. But in the case of simple people and those
who are weak in the faith, whose perversion is to be feared
as a probable result, they should be forbidden to communi-
cate with unbelievers, and especially to be on very familiar
terms with them, or to communicate with them without
necessity.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2. The Church does not exercise judgment
against unbelievers in the point of inflicting spiritual
punishment on them: but she does exercise judgment
over some of them in the matter of temporal punishment.
It is under this head that sometimes the Church, for certain
special sins, withdraws the faithful from communication
with certain unbelievers.

Reply Obj. 3. There is more probability that a servant
who is ruled by his master's commands, will be converted
to the faith of his master who is a believer, than if the case
were the reverse : and so the faithful are not forbidden to
have unbelieving servants. If, however, the master were
in danger, through communicating with such a servant,
he should send him away, according to Our Lord's command
(Matth. xviii. 8) : // . . . thy foot scandalize thee, cut it
off, and cast it from thee.

With regard to the argument in the contrary* sense the
reply is that the Lord gave this command in reference
to those nations into whose territory the Jews were about
to enter. For the latter were inclined to idolatry, so that
it was to be feared lest, through frequent dealings with those
nations, they should be estranged from the faith: hence
the text goes on (verse 4) : For she will turn away thy son
from following Me.

* The Leonine Edition gives this solution before the Heply Ohj. 2.

139 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Akt. lo

Tenth Article.

whether unbelievers may have authority or
dominion over the faithful ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that unbelievers may have authority
or dominion over the faithful. For the Apostle says
(i Tim. vi. i): Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let
them count their masters worthy of all honour : and it is clear
that he is speaking of unbelievers, since he adds (verse 2) :
But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them.
Moreover it is written (i Pet. ii. 18): Servants be subject to
your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward. Now^ this command would not be
contained in the apostolic teaching, unless unbelievers
could have authority over the faithful. Therefore it seems
that unbelievers can have authority over the faithful.

Obj. 2. Further, All the members of a prince's household
are his subjects. Now some of the faithful were members
of unbelieving princes' households, for we read in the
PIpistle to the Philippians (iv. 22): All the saints salute you,
especially they that are of Ccesar's household, referring to
Nero, who was an unbeliever. Therefore unbelievers can
have authority over the faithful.

Obj. 3. Further, According to the Philosopher (Polit. i.) a
slave is his master's instrument in matters concerning every-
day life, even as a craftsman's labourer is his instrument
in matters concerning the working of his art. Now, in
such matters, a believer can be subject to an unbeliever,
for he may work on an unbeliever's farm. Therefore un-
believers may have authority over the faithful even as
to dominion.

On the contrary, Those who are in authority can pro-
nounce judgment on those over whom they are placed.
But unbelievers cannot pronounce judgment on the faithful,
for the Apostle says (i Cor. vi. i): Dare any of yon,
having a matter against another, go to be judged before

g. lo. Art. io THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 140

the unjust, i.e. unbelievers, and not before the saints ? There-
fore it seems that unbelievers cannot have authority over
the faithful.

/ answer that, That this question may be considered in
two ways. First, we may speak of dominion or authority
of unbelievers over the faithful as of a thing to be established
for the first time. This ought by no means to be allowed,
since it would provoke scandal and endanger the faith,
for subjects are easily influenced by their superiors to
comply with their commands, unless the subjects are of
great virtue: moreover unbelievers hold the faith in con-
tempt, if they see the faithful fall away. Hence the
Apostle forbade the faithful to go to law before an un-
believing judge. And so the Church altogether forbids
unbelievers to acquire dominion over believers, or to have
authority over them in any capacity whatever.

Secondly, we may speak of dominion or authority, as
already in force: and here we must observe that dominion
and authority are institutions of human law, while the
distinction between faithful and unbelievers arises from the
Divine law. Now the Divine law which is the law of grace,
does not do away with human law which is the law of natural
reason. Wherefore the distinction between faithful and
unbelievers, considered in itself, does not do away with
dominion and authority of unbelievers over the faithful.

Nevertheless this right of dominion or authority can be
justly done away with by the sentence or ordination of the
Church who has the authority of God : since unbelievers in
virtue of their unbelief deserve to forfeit their power over
the faithful who are converted into children of God.

This the Church does sometimes, and sometimes not.
For among those unbelievers who are subject, even in
temporal matters, to the Church and her members, the
Church made the law that if the slave of a Jew became a
Christian, he should forthwith receive his freedom, without
paying any price, if he should be a vernaculus, i.e. born
in slavery; and likewise if, when yet an unbeliever, he had
been bought for his service : if, however, he had been

141 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. io

bought for sale, then he should be offered for sale within
three months. Nor does the Church harm them in this,
because since those Jews themselves are subject to the
Church, she can dispose of their possessions, even as secular
princes have enacted many laws to be observed by their
subjects, in favour of liberty. On the other hand, the
Church has not applied the above law to those unbelievers
who are not subject to her or her members, in temporal
matters, although she has the right to do so: and this,
in order to avoid scandal, for as Our Lord showed (Matth.
xvii. 25, 26) that He could be excused from paying the
tribute, because the children are free, yet He ordered the tribute
to be paid in order to avoid giving scandal. Thus Paul
too, after saying that servants should honour their masters,
adds, lest the name of the Lord and His doctrine he blasphemed.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Cbj. 2. The authority of Caesar preceded the dis-
tinction of faithful from unbelievers. Hence it was not
cancelled by the conversion of some to the faith. More-
over it was a good thing that there should be a few of the
faithful in the emperor's household, that they might
defend the rest of the faithful. Thus the Blessed Sebastian
encouraged those whom he saw faltering under torture,
and, the while, remained hidden under the military cloak
in the palace of Diocletian.

Reply Obj. 3. Slaves are subject to their masters for their
whole lifetime, and are subject to their overseers in every-
thing: whereas the craftsman's labourer is subject to him
for certain special works. Hence it would be more dangerous
for unbelievers to have dominion or authority over the
faithful, than that they should be allowed to employ them
in some craft. Wherefore the Church permits Christians to
work on the land of Jews, because this does not entail their
living together with them. Thus Solomon besought the
King of Tyre to send master workmen to hew the trees, as
related in 3 Kings v. Yet, if there be reason to fear that
the faithful will be perverted by such communications
and dealings, they should be absolutely forbidden.

Q. lo. Art. ii THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 142

Eleventh Article.

Win-yjllEK THE RTIES OF UNBELIEVERS OUGHT TO
BE TOLERATED ?

\Vc proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that ntcs of unbelievers ought not
to be tolerated. Eor \t is evident that unbehevers sin in
observing their rites: and not to prevent a sin, when one
can, seems to imply consent therein, as a gloss observes
on Rom. i. 32: Not only they that do them, but they also that
consent to them that do them. Tnerefore it is a sin to tolerate
their rites.

Obj. 2. Further, The rites of the Jews are compared to
idolatry, because a gloss on Gal. v. i, Be not held again
under the yoke of bondage, says : The bondage of that law
was not lighter than that of idolatry. But it would not be
allowable for anyone to observe the rites of idolatry, in
fact Christian princes at first caused the temples of idols
to be closed, and afterwards, to be destroyed, as Augustine
relates (De Civ. Dei xviii.). Therefore it follows that even
the rites of Jews ought not to be tolerated.

Obj. 3. Further, Unbelief is the greatest of sins, as stated
above (A. 3). Now other sins such as adultery, theft and
the like, are not tolerated, but are punishable by law.
Therefore neither ought the rites of unbelievers to be
tolerated.

On the contrary, Gregory says, speaking of the Jews
(Kegist. xi., cf. Decret., dist. xlv., can., Q^ii sincera) : They
should be allowed to observe all the.r feasts, just as hitherto
they and their fathers have for ages observed them.

I answer that, Human government is derived from the
Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although
God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He
allows certain evils to take place m the universe, which He
might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be
forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human
government also, those who arc in authority, rightly

143 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 12

tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain
greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says {De Ordinc
ii.) : // you do away with harlots, the world will he convulsed
with lust. Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites,
they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that
ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus
from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of
old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold,
there follows this good — that our very enemies bear witness
to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure,
so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the
observance of their rites.

On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which
are neither truthful nor profitable are by no m.eans to be
tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil,
e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some
hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were un-
molested might gradually be converted to the faith. For
this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites
even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very
numerous.

This sufiices for the Replies to the Objections.

Twelfth Article.

whether the children of jews and of other un-
believers ought to be baptized against their
parents' will ?

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the children of Jews and of
other unbelievers ought to be baptized against their parents'
will. For the bond of marriage is stronger than the right
of parental authority over children, since the right of
parental authority can be made to cease, when a son is
set at liberty; whereas the marriage bond cannot be severed
by man, according to Matth. xix. 6: What . . . God hath
joined together let no man put asunder. And yet the mai riage
bond is broki'U on account of unbelief: for the Apostle

Q. lo. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 144

says (i Cor. vii. 15) : // the unbeliever depart, let him depart.
For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases : and
the canon (Can., Uxor legitima et Idololatria xxviii., qu. i.)
says that if the unbelieving partner is unwilling to abide with
the other, without insult to their Creator, then the other partner
is not bound to cohabitation. Much more, therefore, does
unbehef abrogate the right of unbeheving parents' authority
over their children: and consequently their children may
be baptized against their parents' will.

Obj. 2. Further, One is more bound to succour a man
who is in danger of everlasting death, than one who is in
danger of temporal death. Now it would be a sin, if one
saw a man in danger of temporal death and failed to go
to his aid. Since, then, the children of Jews and other
unbelievers are in danger of everlasting death, should they
be left to their parents who would imbue them with their
unbelief, it seems that they ought to be taken away from
them and baptized, and instructed in the faith.

Obj. 3. Further, The children of a bondsman are them-
selves bondsmen, and under the power of his master. Now
the Jews are bondsmen of kings and princes : therefore their
children are also. Consequently kings and princes have the
power to do what they will with Jewish children. There-
fore no injustice is committed if they baptize them against
their parents' wishes.

Obj. 4. Further, Every man belongs more to God, from
Whom he has his soul, than to his carnal father, from whom
he has his body. Therefore it is not unjust if Jewish
children be taken away from their parents, and consecrated
to God in Baptism.

Obj. 5. Further, Baptism avails for salvation more than
preaching does, since Baptism removes forthwith the stain
of sin and the debt of punishment, and opens the gate of
heaven. Now if danger ensue through not preaching, it
is imputed to him who omitted to preach, according to the
words of Ezech. xxxiii. 6 about the man who sees the sword
coming and sounds not the trumpet. Much more therefore,
if Jewish children are lost through not being baptized,

145 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 12

are they accounted guilty of sin, who could have baptized
them and did not.

On the contrary, Injustice should be done to no man.
Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were
to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the
rights of parental authority over their children as soon as
these were Christians. Therefore these should not be
baptized against their parents' will.

I answer that, The custom of the Church has very great
authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things,
since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its
authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by
the authority of the Church rather than by that of an
Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever. Now
it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the
children of Jews against the will of their parents, although
in times past there have been many very powerful catholic
princes like Constantine and Theodosius, with whom most
holy bishops have been on most friendly terms, as Sylvester
with Constantine, and Ambrose with Theodosius, who
would certainly not have failed to obtain this favour from
them if it had been at all reasonable. It seems therefore
hazardous to repeat this assertion, that the children of
Jews should be baptized against their parents' wishes,
in contradiction to the Church's custom observed hitherto.

There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account
of the danger to faith. For children baptized before
coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to
perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents
to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and
this would be detrimental to the faith.

The other reason is that it is against natural justice.
For a child is by nature part of its father: thus, at first, it
is not distinct from its parents as to its bod}^ so long as
it is enfolded within its mother's womb; and later on after
birth, and before it has the use of its free-will, it is enfolded
in the care of its parents, which is like a spiritual womb,
for so long as man has not the use of reason, he differs

II. ii. I 10

g. lo. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 14^^

not from an irrational animal; so that even as an ox or a
horse belongs to someone who, according to the civil law,
can use them when he likes, as his own instrument, so,
according to the natural law, a son, before coming to the
use of reason, is under his father's care. Hence it would
be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming
to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents'
custody, or anything done to it against its parents' wish.
As soon, however, as it begins to have the use of its free-
will, it begins to belong to itself, and is able to look after
itself, in matters concerning the Divine or the natural law,
and then it should be induced, not by compulsion but by
persuasion, to embrace the faith: it can then consent to
the faith, and be baptized, even against its parents'
wish; but not before it comes to the use of reason. Hence
it is said of the children of the fathers of old that they
were saved in the faith of their parents; whereby we are
given to understand that it is the parents' duty to look
after the salvation of their children, especially before they
come to the use of reason.

Reply Ohj. i. In the marriage bond, both husband and
wife have the use of the free-will, and each can assent to the
faith without the other's consent. But this does not
apply to a child before it comes to the use of reason: yet
the comparison holds good after the child has come to the
use of reason, if it is willing to be converted.

Reply Ohj. 2. No one should be snatched from natural
death against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man
were condemned by the judge to temporal death, nobody
ought to rescue him by violence : hence no one ought to
break the order of the natural law, whereby a child is in
the custody of its father, in order to rescue it from the
danger of everlasting death.

Reply Ohj. 3. Jews are bondsmen of princes by civil
bondage, which does not exclude the order of natural or
Divine law.

Reply Ohj. 4. Man is directed to God by his reason,
whereby he can know Him. Hence a child before coming

147 UNBELIEF IN GENERAL Q. lo. Art. 12

to the use of reason, in the natural order of things, is directed
to (jod by its parents' reason, under whose care it Hes by
nature : and it is for them to dispose of the child in all
matters relating to God.

Reply Obj. 5. The peril that ensues from the omission
of preaching, threatens only those who are entrusted with
the duty of preaching. Hence it had already been said
(Ezech. iii. 17) : / have made thee a watchman to the children
(Vulg., — house) of Israel. On the other hand, to provide
the sacraments of salvation for the children of unbelievers
is the duty of their parents. Hence it is they whom
the danger threatens, if through being deprived of the
sacraments their children fail to obtain salvation.

OUESTION XL

OF HERESY.
{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider heresy: under which head there are
four points of inquiry: (i) Whether heresy is a kind of
unbehef ? (2) Of the matter about which it is.
(3) Whether heretics should be tolerated ? (4) Whether
converts should be received ?

First Article,
whether heresy is a species of unbelief ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that heresy is not a species of un-
belief. For unbelief is in the understanding, as stated
above (Q. X., A. 2). Now heresy would seem not to
pertain to the understanding, but rather to the appetitive
power; for Jerome says on Gal. v. 19: The works of the flesh
are manifest (cf . Decret. xxiv., qu. iii., cap. 27) : Heresy is
derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man
makes choice of that school which he deems best. But choice
is an act of the appetitive power, as stated above (I.-II.,
Q. XIII., A. i). Therefore heresy is not a species of
unbelief.

Obj. 2. Further, Vice takes its species chiefly from its
end; hence the Philosopher says [Ethic, v.) that he who
commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather than
an adulterer. Now the end of heresy is temporal profit,
especially lordship and glory, which belong to the vice
of pride or covetousness : for Augustine says {De Util.
Credendi i.) that a heretic is one who either devises or follows

148

149 HERESY Q. ii.Art. i

false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit,
especially that he may lord and he honoured above others.
Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of
unbeUef.

Ohj. 3. Further, Since unbehef is in the understanding,
it would seem not to pertain to the flesh. Now heresy
belongs to the works of the flesh, for the Apostle says
(Gal. V. 19): The works of the flesh are manifest, which are
fornication, uncleanness, and among the others, he adds,
dissensions, sects, which are the same as heresies. There-
fore heresy is not a species of unbelief.

On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now
a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions.
Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith
is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.

/ answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first
objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above
(I.-II., Q. XIII., A. 3) is about things directed to the end,
the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the
will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was
shown above (Q. IV., A. 3) : wherefore that which is
the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those
which are secondary truths, have the character of being
directed to the end.

Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words;
so that, in every form of belief, the person to whose words
assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the
end as it were ; while the things by holding which one assents
to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he
that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his
will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His
doctrine.

Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may
deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First,
because he is unwilling to assent to Christ; and such a man
has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This
belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews.
Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ,

Q. II. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 150

yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents
to Christ, because he chooses, not what Christ really taught,
but the suggestions of his own mind.

Therefore heresy is a species of unbehef, belonging to
those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its
dogmas.

Reply Obj. i. Choice regards unbelief in the same way
as the will regards faith, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. Vices take their species from their proxi-
mate end, while, from their remote end, they take their
genus and cause. Thus in the case of adultery committed
for the sake of theft, there is the species of adultery taken
from its proper end and object ; but the ultimate end shows
that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and
is included under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species
under its genus, as appears from what we have said about
acts in general (I. -II., Q. XVIII., A. 7). Wherefore,
as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy
is adherence to one's own false opinion, and from this it
derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause,
viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness.

Reply Obj. 3. Just as heresy is so called from its being a
choosing, so does sect derive its name from its being a cut-
ting off (secando) , SiS Isidore states (Etym. viii.). Wherefore
heresy and sect are the same thing, and each belongs to
the works of the flesh, not indeed by reason of the act itself
of unbelief in respect of its proximate object, but by reason
of its cause, which is either the desire of an undue end
(in which way it arises from pride or covetousness, as stated
in the second objection), or some illusion of the imagina-
tion (which gives rise to error, as the Philosopher states in
Met. iv.), for this faculty has a certain connection with
the flesh, in as much as its act is dependent on a bodily
organ.

151 HERESY Q. II. Art. 2

Second Article,
whether heresy is properly about matters

OE EAITH ?

We proceed thus to the Second A rticle : —
Objection i. It seems that heresy is not properly about
matters of faith. For just as there are heresies and sects
among Christians, so were there among the Jews and
Pharisees, as Isidore observes (Etym. viii.). Now their
dissensions were not about matters of faith. Therefore
heresy is not about matters of faith, as though they were
its proper matter.

Obj. 2. Further, The matter of faith is the thing beheved.
Now heresy is not only about things, but also about words,
and about interpretations of Holy Writ. For Jerome
says on (ral. v. 20 that whoever expounds the Scriptures
in any sense but that of the Holy Ghost by Whom they were
written, may be called a heretic, though he may not have left
the Church : and elsewhere* he says that heresies spring up
from words spoken amiss. Therefore heresy is not properly
about the matter of faith.

Obj. 3. Further, We find the holy doctors differing even
about matters pertaining to the faith, for example Augustine
and Jerome, on the question about the cessation of the
legal observances: and yet this was without any heresy on
their part. Therefore heresy is not properly about the
matter of faith.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his book against the
Manichees (cf. De Civ. Dei xviii.) : In Christ's Church, those
are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions,
and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly,
offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their per-
nicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them. Now
pernicious and deadly doctrines are none but those which

* S. Thomas quotes this saying elsewhere, in IV. Sent., D., 13,
and P. iii., Q. XVI., A. 8, but it is not to be found in S. Jerome's
works.

Q. II. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 152

are contrar^^ to the dogmas of faith, whereby the just man
liveth (Rom. i. 17). Therefore heresy is about matters of
faith, as about its proper matter.

/ answer that, We are speaking of heresy now as denoting
a corruption of the Christian faith. Now it does not imply
a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false
opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in
questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong
to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a
false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

Now a thing may be of faith in two ways, as stated above
(P. I. Q. XXXIL A. 4: II.-IL, 0. I., A. 6, ad 1: Q. II.,
A. 5), in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles
of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g.
those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption
of some article of faith ; and there may be heresy in either
way, even as there can be faith.

Reply Ohj. i. Just as the heresies of the Jew^s and Pharisees
were about opinions relating to Judaism or Pharisaism, so
also heresies among Christians are about matters touching
the Christian faith.

Reply Ohj. 2. A man is said to expound Holy Writ in
another sense than that required by the Holy Ghost, when
he so distorts the meaning of Holy Writ, that it is contrary
to what the Holy Ghost has revealed. Hence it is written
(Ezech. xiii. 6) about the false prophets: They have per-
sisted to confirm what they have said, viz. by false interpreta-
tions of Scripture. Moreover a man professes his faith by
the w^ords that he utters, since confession is an act of faith,
as stated above (Q. III., A. i). Wherefore inordinate words
about matters of faith may lead to corruption of the faith;
and hence it is that Pope Leo says in a letter to Proterius,
Bishop of Alexandria: The enemies of Christ'' s cross lie in
wait for our every deed and word, so that, if we but give them
the slightest pretext, they may accuse us mendaciously of
agreeing with Xestorius.

Reply Ohj. 3. As Augustine states {Ep. xliii.), hy no
means should ive accuse of heresy those who, however false

153 HERESY Q. ii.Art. 3

and perverse their opinion may he, defend it without obstinate
fervour, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend
their opinion , when they have found the truth, because, to
wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the
doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors
seem to have differed either in matters the holding of
which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith
is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not
as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were
obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by
the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed
a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign
Pontiff. For we read (Decret. xxiv., qu. i., cap. 12):
Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all
our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to
none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and
honour, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine
nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion. Hence
Jerome (Pelagius) says to Pope Damasus (Exposit. Symbol.) :
This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught
in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been in-
correctly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set
aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If how-
ever this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of
your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he
himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but
a heretic.

Third Article,
whether heretics ought to be tolerated ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection I. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated.
For the Apostle says (2 Tim. ii. 24, 25) : The servant of the
Lord must not wrangle, . . . with modesty admonishing
them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them
repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves
from the snares of the devil. Now if heretics are not tok rated

Q. II. Art. 3 THIC " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 154

but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance.
Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Obj. 2. Further, Whatever is necessary in the Church
should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the
Church, since the Apostle says (i Cor. xi. 19): There must
he . . . heresies, that they . . . , i<Dho are reproved, may he
7nanifest among you. Therefore it seems that heretics
should be tolerated.

Obj. 3. Further, The Master commanded his servants
(Matth. xiii. 30) to suffer the cockle to grow until the harvest,
i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy
men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore
heretics should be tolerated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Tit. iii. 10, 11) \ A man
that IS a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid :
knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted.

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must
be observed: one, on their own side, the other, on the side
of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby
they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by
excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by
death. For it is a mv.ch graver matter to corrupt the faith
which quickens the scul, than to forge money, which sup-
ports temporal life. \Vherefore if forgers of money and
other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the
secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics,
as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only
excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which
looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she con-
demns not at once, but after the first and second admonition,
as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn,
the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to
the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and sepa-
rating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers
him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby
from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on
Gal. v. 9, A little leaven, says: Cut of/' the decayed fiesh, expel

155 HERESY Q. h.Art. 4

the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the ivhole
paste, the whole body, the whole flock, hum, perish, rot, die.
Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark
was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its
flame.

Reply Obj. i. This very modesty demands that the
heretic should be admonished a first and second time:
and if he be unwilhng to retract, he must be reckoned as
already subverted, as we may gather from the words of the
Apostle quoted above.

Reply Obj. 2. The proht that ensues from heresy is beside
the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of
the faithful being put to the test, and makes us shake off
our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully, as
Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i.). What they
really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict
very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider
what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what
is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Reply Obj. 3. According to Decret. xxiv. (qu. iii., can.
Notandum), to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted. A
man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (i Cor. v. 5)
that his spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord. Yet if
heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not con-
trary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood
as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked
up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above
(0. X., A. 8, ad i), when treating of unbelievers in general.

Fourth Article.

whether the church should receive those
who return from heresy ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the Church ought in all cases
to receive those who return from heresy. For it is written
(Jerem. iii. 1) in the person of the Lord: Thou hast prostituted
thyself to many lovers ; nevertheless return to Mc saith the

Q. II. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 156

Lord. Now the sentence of the Church is God's sentence,
according to Deut. i. 17: You shall hear the little as well
as the great : neither shall you respect any man^s person,
because it is the judgment of God. Therefore even those who
are guilty of the prostitution of unbehef which is spiritual
prostitution, should be received all the same.

Obj. 2. Further, Our Lord commanded Peter (Matth.
xviii. 22) to forgive his offending brother not only till seven
times, but till seventy times seven times, which Jerome expounds
as meaning that a man should be forgiven, as often as he
has sinned. Therefore he ought to be received by the Church
as often as he has sinned by falling back into heresy.

Obj. 3. Further, Heresy is a kind of unbelief. Now
other unbelievers who wish to be converted are received
by the Church. Therefore heretics also should be received.

On the contrary, The Decretal about heretics {Ad abo-
lendam) says that those who are found to have relapsed into
the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the
secular tribunal. Therefore they should not be received
by the Church.

I answer that. In obedience,'?to Our Lord's institution,
the Church extends her charity to -all, not only to friends,
but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matth.
V. 44 : Love your enemies ; do good to them that hate you. Now
it is part of charity that we should both wish and work
our neighbour's good. Again, good is twofold ; one is
spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly
the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should
wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of
view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often,
are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way
of salvation is opened to them.

The other good is that which charity considers secondarily,
viz. temporal good, such as the life of the body, worldly
possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity,
for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good,
except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of
others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one

157 HERESY Q. ii.Art. 4

individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many,
we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that
person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both
because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal
good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred
to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received
on their return, in order to save their lives and other
temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation
of others, both because they would infect others if they
relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without
punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into
heresy. For it is written (Eccles. viii. 11) : For because
sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children
of men commit evils without any fear.

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance
those who return from heresy for the first time, but also
safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation,
restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they
may have had before, should their conversion appear to
be sincere : we read of this as having frequently been done
for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after
having been received, this seems to prove them to be
inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again,
they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from
the pain of death.

Reply Obj. i. In God's tribunal, those who return are
always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and
knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church
cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those
who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in
their return ; hence she does not debar them from the way
of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the
sentence of death.

Reply Obj. 2. Our Lord was speaking to Peter of sins
committed against oneself, for one should always forgive
such offences and spare our brother when he repents.
Those words are not to be applied to sins committed against
one's neighbour or against God, for it is not left to our

Q. 11. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 158

discretion to forgive such offences, as Jerome says on
Mattli. xviii. 15, // thy brother shall offend against thee.
Yet even in this matter the law prescribes Hmits according
as God's honour or our neighbour's good demands.

Reply Ob]. 3. When other unbehevers, who have never
received the faith are converted, they do not as yet show
signs of inconstancy in faith, as relapsed heretics do; hence
the comparison fails.

QUESTION XII.

OF APOSTASY.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider apostasy; about which there are
two points of inquiry: (i) Whether apostasy pertains to
unbelief ? (2) Whether, on account of apostasy from the
faith, subjects are absolved from allegiance to an apostate
prince ?

First Article.

whether apostasy pertains to unbelief ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —
Objection i. It seems that apostasy does not pertain to
unbelief. For that which is the origin of all sins, does not,
seemingly, pertain to unbelief, since many sins there are
without unbelief. Now apostasy seems to be the origin of
every sin, for it is written (Ecclus. x. 14) : The beginning of
the pride of man is apostasy (Douay, — to fall off) from God,
and further on (verse 15) : Pride is the beginning of all sin.
Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.

Obj. 2. Further, Unbehef is an act of the understanding:
whereas apostasy seems rather to consist in some outward
deed or utterance, or even in some inward act of the will,
for it is written (Prov. vi. 12-14) : .4 )uan that is an apostate,
an unprofitable man walketh with a perverse mouth. He
ivinketh ivith the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh ivith
the finger. With a wicked heart he deviseth evil, ami at all
times he sowcth discord. Moreover if anyone were to have
himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet,

159

Q. 12. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " i6o

he would be deemed an apostate. Therefore apostasy does
not pertain to unbehef .

Obj. 3. Further, Heresy, since it pertains to unbehef,
is a determinate species of unbehef. If then, apostasy
pertained to unbehef, it would follow that it is a determinate
species of unbelief, which does not seem to agree with what
has been said (0. X., A. 5). Therefore apostasy does not
pertain to unbelief.

On the contrary, It is written (John vi. 67) : Many of His
disciples went hack, i.e. apostatized, of whom Our Lord
had said previously (verse 65) : There are some of you that
believe not. Therefore apostasy pertains to unbelief.

/ answer that, Apostasy denotes a backsliding from God.
This may happen in various ways according to the different
kinds of union between man and God. For, in the first
place, man is united to God by faith; secondly, by having
his will duly submissive in obeying His commandments;
thirdly, by certain special things pertaining to supererogation
such as the religious life, the clerical state, or holy Orders.
Now if that which follows be removed, that which precedes,
remains, but the converse does not hold. Accordingly
a man may apostatize from God, by withdrawing from the
religious life to which he was bound by profession, or from
the holy Order which he had received: and this is called
apostasy from religious life or Orders. A man may also
apostatize from God, by rebelling in his mind against the
Divine commandments: and though man may apostatize
in both the above ways, he may still remain united to God
by faith.

But if he give up the faith, then he seems to turn away
from God altogether: and consequently, apostasy simply
and absolutely is that whereby a man withdraws from the
faith, and is called apostasy of perfidy. In this way apostasy,
simply so called, pertains to unbelief.

Reply Obj. i. This objection refers to the second kind
of apostasy, which denotes an act of the wiU in rebeUion
against God's commandments, an act that is to be found
in every mortal sin.

i6i APOSTASY Q. 12. Art. i

Reply Obj. 2. It belongs to faith not only that the heart
should believe, but also that external words and deeds
should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is
an act of faith. Tn this way too, certain external words
or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of
unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy.
Now although the authority quoted may be understood
as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most
truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is
the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since,
without faith it is impossible to please God ; when once faith
is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for
the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is
written (Prov. vi. 12) : A man that is an apostate, an un-
profitable man : because faith is the life of the soul, according
to Rom. i. 17 : The just man liveth by faith. Therefore,
just as when the life of the body is taken away, man's
every member and part loses its due disposition, so,
when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away,
disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth,
whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his
eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly,
in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that he soil's
discord, endeavouring to sever others from the faith even
as he severed himself.

Reply Obj. 3. The species of a quality or form are not
diversified by the fact of its being the term wherefrom or
whereto of movement: on the contrary, it is the movement
that takes its species from the terms. Now apostasy
regards unbelief as the term whereto of the movement of
withdrawal from the faith; wherefore apostasy does not
imply a special kind of unbelief, but an aggravating circum-
stance thereof, according to 2 Pet. ii. 21: // had been bctt.r
for them not to know the truth (Vulg., — the way of jw^tice^,
than after they had known it, to turn back.

\\. 11. T II

Q. 12. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 162

Second Article.

whether a prince forfeits his dominion over his
subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith,
so that they no longer owe him allegiance ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a prince does not so forfeit
his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from
the faith, that they no longer owe him allegiance. For
Ambrose* says that the Emperor Julian, though an apostate,
nevertheless had under him Christian soldiers, who when
he said to them, Gather the soldiers together for the defence
of the republic, were bound to obey. Therefore subjects
are not absolved from their allegiance to their prince on
account of his apostasy.

Obj. 2. Further, An apostate from the faith is an un-
believer. Now we find that certain holy men served
unbelieving masters; thus Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel
served Nabuchodonosor, and Mardochai served Assuerus.
Therefore apostasy from the faith does not release subjects
from allegiance to their sovereign.

Obj. 3. Further, Just as by apostasy from the faith, a
man turns away from God, so does every sin. Conse-
quently if, on account of apostasy from the faith, princes
were to lose their right to command those of their subjects
who are believers, they would equally lose it on account
of other sins: which is evidently not the case. Therefore
we ought not to refuse allegiance to a sovereign on account
of his apostatizing from the faith.

On the contrary, Gregory VII. says (Concil. Roman, v.) :
Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by
our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who
through loyalty or through the sacred bond of an oath owe
allegiance to excommunicated persons : and we absolutely
forbid them to continue their allegiance to such persons, until
these shall have made amends. Now apostates from the
faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the
* S. Augustine {Super Ps. cxxiv. 3).

i63 APOSTASY Q. 12. Art. 2

Decretal (Extra, De Hcereticis, cap. Ad aholendam) . There-
fore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized
from the faith.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. X., A. 10), unbehef, in
itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since dominion
is a device of the law of nations which is a human law:
whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers
is of Divine right, which does not annul human right.
Nevertheless a man who sins by unbelief may be sentenced
to the loss of his right of dominion, as also, sometimes, on
account of other sins.

Now it is not within the competency of the Church to
punish unbehef in those who have never received the faith,
according to the saying of the Apostle (i Cor. v. 12) : What
have I to do to judge them that are without ? She can, how-
ever, pass sentence of punishment on the unbelief of those
who have received the faith: and it is fitting that they
should be punished by being deprived of the allegiance of
their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce
to great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above
(A. I., Ohj. 2), a man that is an apostate . . . with a wicked
heart deviseth evil, and . . . soweth discord, in order to sever
others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence
of excommunication is passed on a man on account of
apostasy from the faith, his subjects are ipso facto absolved
from his authority and from the oath of allegiance whereby
they were bound to him.

Reply Ohj. i. At that time the Church was but recently
instituted, and had not, as yet, the power of curbing
earthly princes; and so she allowed the faithful to obey
Julian the apostate, in matters that were not contrary
to the faith, in order to avoid incurring a yet greater
danger.

Reply Ohj. 2. As stated in the article, it is not a question
of those unbelievers who have never received the faith.

Reply Ohj. 3. Apostasy from the faith severs man from
God altogether, as stated above (A. i), which is not the case
in any other sin.

QUESTION Xni.

OF THE SIN OF BLASPHEMY, IN GENERAL.

{hi Four Articles.)

We must now consider the sin of blasphemy, which is
opposed to the confession of faith; and (i) blasphemy in
general, (2) that blasphemy which is called the sin against
the Holy Ghost.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(i) Whether blasphemy is opposed to the confession of
faith ? (2) Whether blasphemy is always a mortal sin ?

(3) Whether blasphemy is the most grievous sin ?

(4) Whether blasphemy is in the damned ?

First Article.

whether blasphemy is opposed to the
confession of faith ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that blasphemy is not opposed to
the confession of faith. Because to blaspheme is to utter
an affront or insult against the Creator. Now this pertains
to ill-will against God rather than to unbehef. Therefore
blasphemy is not opposed to the confession of faith.

Obj. 2. Further, On Eph. iv. 31, Let blasphemy . . . be
put away from you, a gloss says, that which is committed
against God or the saints. But confession of faith, seemingly,
is not about other things than those pertaining to God,
Who is the object of faith. Therefore blasphemy is not
always opposed to the confession of faith.

164

i65 BLASPHEMY Q. 13 Art. 1

Obj. 3. Further, According to some, there are three kinds
of blasphemy. The first of these is when something un-
fitting is affirmed of God; the second is when something
fitting is denied of Him; and the third, when something
proper to (iod is ascribed to a creature, so that, seemingly,
blasphemy is not only about God, but also about His
creatures. Now the object of faith is God. Therefore
blasphemy is not opposed to confession of faith.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Tim. i. 12, 13):
I . . . before 'was a blasphemer and a persecutor, and after-
wards, / did it ignorantly in my unbelief. Hence it seems
that blasphemy pertains to unbelief.

/ answer that. The word blasphemy seems to denote the
disparagement of some surpassing goodness, especially
that of God. Now God, as Dionysius says {Div. Norn, i.),
is the very essence of true goodness. Hence whatever
befits God, pertains to His goodness, and whatever does
not befit Him, is far removed from the perfection of good-
ness which is His Essence. Consequently whoever either
denies anything befitting God, or affirms anything un-
befitting Him, disparages the Divine goodness.

Now this may happen in two ways. In the first way it
may happen merely in respect of the opinion in the intellect ;
in the second way this opinion is united to a certain detesta-
tion in the affections, even as, on the other hand, faith in
God is perfected by love of Him. Accordingly this dis-
paragement of the Divine goodness is either in the intellect
alone, or in the affections also. If it is in thought only,
it is blasphemy of the heart, whereas if it betrays itself
outwardly in speech it is blasphemy of the tongue. It is
in this sense that blasphemy is opposed to confession of
faith.

Reply Obj. 1. He that speaks against God, with the
intention of reviling Him, disparages the Divine goodness,
not only in respect of the falsehood in his intellect, but also
by reason of the wickedness of his will, whereby he detests
and strives to hinder the honour due to God, and this is
perfect blasphemy.

Q. 13. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 166

Reply Obi. 2. Even as God is praised in His saints, in
so far as praise is given to the works which God does in
His saints, so does blasphemy against the saints, redound,
as a consequence, against God.

Reply Ohj. 3. Properly speaking, the sin of blasphemy
is not in this way divided into three species: since to
afhrm unfttting things, or to deny fitting things of God,
differ merely as affirmation and negation. For this diver-
sity does not cause distinct species of habits, since the
falsehood of affirmations and negations is made known by
the same knowledge, and it is the same ignorance which errs
in either way, since negatives are proved by affirmatives,
according to Poster, i. and Met. iv. Again to ascribe to
creatures things that are proper to God, seems to amount
to the same as affirming something unfitting of Him, since
whatever is proper to God is God Himself: and to ascribe
to a creature, that which is proper to God, is to assert
that God is the same as a creature.

Second Article,
whether blasphemy is always a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that blasphemy is not always a
mortal sin. Because a gloss on the words, Now lay you also
all away, etc. (Coloss. iii. 8) says: After prohibiting greater
crimes he forbids lesser sins : and yet among the latter he
includes blasphemy. Therefore blasphemy is comprised
among the lesser, i.e. venial, sins.

Obj. 2. Further, Every mortal sin is opposed to one of
the precepts of the decalogue. But, seemingly, blasphemy
is not contrary to any of them. Therefore blasphemy is
not a mortal sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Sins committed without deliberation,
are not mortal: hence first movements are not mortal sins,
because they precede the deliberation of the reason, as was
shown above (I. -II., O. LXXIV., AA. 3, 10) . Now blasphemy

i67 BLASPHEMY Q. 13. Art. 2

sometimes occurs without deliberation of the reason.
Therefore it is not always a mortal sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Lev. xxiv. 16) : He that
hlasphcmeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die. Now
the death punishment is not inflicted except for a mortal
sin. Therefore blasphemy is a mortal sin.

I answer that. As stated above (I. -II., Q. LXXIL, A. 5),
a mortal sin is one whereby a man is severed from the
first principle of spiritual life, which principle is the charity
of God. Therefore whatever things are contrary to charity,
are mortal sins in respect of their genus. Now blasphemy, as
to its genus, is opposed to Divine charity, because, as
stated above (A. i), it disparages the Divine goodness,
which is the object of charity. Consequently blasphemy
is a mortal sin, by reason of its genus.

Reply Obj. i. This gloss is not to be understood as mean-
ing that all the sins which follow, are mortal, but that
whereas all those mentioned previously are more grievous
sins, some of those mentioned afterwards are less grievous;
and yet among the latter some more grievous sins are
included.

Reply Obj. 2. Since, as stated above (A. i), blasphemy
is contrary to the confession of faith, its prohibition is
comprised under the prohibition of unbelief, expressed
by the words: / am the Lord thy God, etc. (Exod. xx. i).
Or else, it is forbidden by the words: Thou shall not take
the name of . . . God in vain {ibid. 7). Because he who
asserts something false about God, takes His name in
vain even more than he who uses the name of God in
confirmation of a falsehood.

Reply Obj. 3. There are two ways in which blasphemy
may occur unawares and without deliberation. In the
first way, by a man failing to advert to the blasphemous
nature of his words, and this may happen through his being
moved suddenly by passion so as to break out into words
suggested by his imagination, without heeding to the
meaning of those words: this is a venial sin, and is not a
blasphemy properly so called. In the second way, by

g. 13. Akt. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 168

adverting to the meaning of his words, and to their blasphe-
mous nature : in which case he is not excused from mortal
sin, even as neither is he who, in a sudden movement of
anger, kills one who is sitting beside him.

' Third Article.

whether the sin of blasphemy is the
greatest sin ?

We proceed thus to the Third A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that the sin of blasphemy is not
the greatest sin. For, according to Augustine {Enchirid.
xii.), a thing is said to be evil because it does harm. Now
the sin of murder, since it destroys a man's life, does more
harm than the sin of blasphemy, which can do no harm to
God. Therefore the sin of murder is more grievous than
that of blasphemy.

Obj. 2. Further, A perjurer calls upon God to witness
to a falsehood, and thus seems to assert that God is false.
But not every blasphemer goes so far as to say that God is
false. Therefore perjury is a more grievous sin than
blasphemy.

Obj. 3. Further, On Ps. Ixxiv. 6, Lift not np your horn
on high, a gloss says: To excuse oneself for sin is the greatest
sin of all. Therefore blasphemy is not the greatest sin.

On the contrary, On Isa. xviii. 2, To a terrible people, etc.
a gloss says: In comparison with blasphemy, every sin is
slight.

I answer that, As stated above (A. i), blasphemy is
opposed to the confession of faith, so that it contains the
gravity of unbelief: while the sin is aggravated if the will's
detestation is added thereto, and yet rhore, if it breaks
out into words, even as love and confession add to the
praise of faith.

Therefore, since, as stated above (Q. X., A. 3), unbelief
is the greatest of sins in respect of its genus, it follows that
blasphemy also, is a very great sin, through belonging to

iUj BLASPHEMY o. 13. A'" •• 4

the same genus as unbelief and being an aggravated form
of that sin.

Reply Ohj. I. If we compare murder and blasphemy as
regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy,
which is a sin committed directly against (lod, is more
grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbour.
On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the
liarm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder
does more harm to one's neighbour, than blasphemy does
to God. Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the
intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the
deed, as was shown above (I. -II., Q. LXXIIL, A. 8),
it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to
God's honour, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously
than the murderer. Nevertheless murder takes precedence,
as to punishment, among sins committed against our
neighbour.

Reply Obi. 2. A gloss on the words, Let . . . blasphemy be
put away from I'ow (Eph. iv. 31) says: Blasphemy is worse
than perjurv. The reason is that the perjurer does not say
or think something false about God, as the blasphemer
does: but he calls (lod to wdtness to a falsehood, not that
he deems (joel a false witness, but in the hope, as it were,
that God will not testify to the matter by some evident
sign.

Reply Obj. ]. To excuse oneself for sin is a circumstance
that aggravates every sin, even blasphemy itself: and it is
called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every
sin more grievous.

Fourth Artkli«:.
whether the damned blasi'heme ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the damned do not blaspheme.
Because some wicked men are deterred fn.m blaspheming
now. on account of the fear of future punishment. But the
damned are undergoing these punishments, so that they

Q. 13. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 170

abhor them yet more. Therefore, much more are they
restrained from blaspheming.

Obj. 2. Further, Since blasphemy is a most grievous
sin, it is most demeritorious. Now in the life to come
there is no state of meriting or demerit ing. Therefore
there will be no place for blasphemy.

Obj. 3. Further, It is written (Eccles. xi. 3) that the
tree, . . . in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be :
whence it clearly follows that, after this life, man acquires
neither merit nor sin, which he did not already possess in
this life. Now many will be damned who were not blasphe-
mous in this life. Neither, therefore, will they blaspheme in
the life to come.

On. the contrary, It is written (Apoc. xvi. 9): The men
were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name
of God, Who hath power over these plagues, and a gloss on
these words says that those who are in hell, though aware
that they are deservedly punished, will nevertheless complain
that God is so powerful as to torture them thus. Now this
would be blasphemy in their present state: and conse-
quently it will also be in their future state.

I answer that, As stated above (AA. i, 3), detestation of
the Divine goodness is a necessary condition of blasphemy.
Now those who are in hell retain their wicked will which
is turned away from God's justice, since they love the things
for which they are punished, would wish to use them if
they could, and hate the punishments inflicted on them
for those same sins. They regret indeed the sins which
they have committed, not because they hate them, but
because they are punished for them. Accordingly this
detestation of the Divine justice is, in them, the interior
blasphemy of the heart: and it is credible that after
the resurrection they will blaspheme God with the
tongue, even as the saints will praise Him with their
voices.

Reply Obj. i. In the present life men are deterred from
blasphemy through fear of punishment which they think
they can escape : whereas, in hell, the damned have no hope

171 BLASPHEMY Q. 13. Art. 4

of escape, so that, in despair, they are borne towards what-
ever their wicked will suggests to them.

Reply Ohj, 2. Merit and demerit belong to the state of
a wayfarer, wherefore good is meritorious in them, while
evil is demeritorious. In the blessed, on the other hand,
good is not meritorious, but is part of their blissful reward,
and, in like manner, in the damned, evil is not demeritorious,
but is part of the punishment of damnation.

Reply Ohj. 3. Whoever dies in mortal sin, bears with him
a will that detests the Divine justice with regard to a
certain thing, and in this respect there can be blasphemy
in him.

QUESTION XIV.

Ol' l^.LASPHEMY AGAINST THE H(^LV (illOST.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider in particular blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost : under which head there are four points of
inquiry: (i) Whether blasphemy or the sin against the Holy
Ghost is the same as the sin committed through certain
malice ? (2) Of the species of this sin. (3) Whether it
cannot be forgiven ? (4) Whether it is possible to begin
by sinning against the Holy Ghost before committing
other sins ?

First Article.

whether the sin against the holy ghost is the same
as the sin committed through certain malice ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the sin against the Holy Ghost
is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice.
Because the sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of blas-
phemy, according to Matth. xii. 32. But not every sin com-
mitted through certain malice is a sin of blasphemy: since
many other kinds of sin may be committed through certain
malice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not
the same as the sin committed through certain malice.

Ohj. 2. Further, The sin committed' through certain
malice is condivided with sin committed through ignorance,
and sin committed through weakness: whereas the sin
against the Holy Ghost is condivided with the sin against
the Son of Man (Matth. xii. 32). Therefore the sin against
the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through

172

173 SIN AGAINST TilK HOLY (^HOST Q. 14. Art. i

certain malice, since things whose opposites differ, are
themselves different.

Obj. 3. Further, The sin against the Holy Cihost is itself
a generic sin, having its own determinate species : whereas
sin committed through certain malice is not a special
kind of sin, but a condition or general circumstance of sin,
which can affect any kind of sin at all. Therefore the sin
against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed
through certain malice.

On the contrary, The Master says (2 Sent., I). 43) that
to sin against the Holy Ghost is to take pleasure in the malice
of sin for its own sake. Now this is to sin through certain
malice. Therefore it seems that the sin committed through
certain malice is the same as the sin against the Holy Ghost.
/ answer that, Three meanings have been given to the
sin against the Holy Ghost. For the earlier doctors, viz.
Athanasius (Super Matth. xii. 32), Hilary (Can. xii. in
Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii. 10, Whosoever speaketh
a word, etc.), Jerome (Super Matth. xii.), and Chrysostom
(Horn. xlii. in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy
Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential
name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which
is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the
Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against
the Holy (ihost is distinct from blasphemy against the
Son of Man (Matth. xii. 32), for Christ did certain things
in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and
suchlike actions, while He did others in respect of His
(iodhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the
like: which things He did both by the power of His own
(iodhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom
He was full, according to His human nature. Now the
Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of
Man, when they said (Matth. xi. 19) that He was a glutton,
. . . a wine-drinker, and a friend of publicans : but after-
wards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they
:is( rilxnl to the princ*-' of devils those works which Christ

Q. 14. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 174

did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the
operation of the Holy Ghost.

Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom. xi.), says that blas-
phemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence,
when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death,
and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth,
but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one
word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense,
is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because
it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work
of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father
and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews,
as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since
they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned
them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin
against the Holy Ghost : and it is in this sense that we are
to understand Mark iii. 29, 30, where after Our Lord had
said: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, etc.
the Evangelist adds, because they said : He hath an unclean
spirit.

But others understand it differently, and say that the
sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed
against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost :
because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just
as power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the
Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weak-
ness, it is a sin against the Father ; that when he sins through
ignorance, it is a sin against the Son ; and that when he
sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing
of evil, as explained above (I.-IL, Q. LXXVIIL, AA. i, 3),
it is a sin against the Holy Ghost.

Now this may happen in two ways. First by reason of
the very inclination of a vicious habit which we call
malice, and, in this way, to sin through malice is not the
same as to sin against the Holy Ghost. In another way
it happens that by reason of contempt, that which might
have prevented the choosing of evil, is rejected or removed;
thus hope is removed by despair, and fear by presumption,

175 SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST Q. 14. Art. 2

and so on, as we shall explain further on (QQ. XX., XXI.).
Now all these things which prevent the choosing of sin are
effects of the Holy Ghost in us; so that, in this sense, to
sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Ghost.

Reply Obj. I. Just as the confession of faith consists
in a protestation not only of words but also of deeds, so
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can be uttered in word,
thought and deed.

Reply Obj. 2. According to the third interpretation,
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is condivided with
blasphemy against the Son of Man, forasmuch as He is
also the Son of God, i.e. the power of God and the wisdom
of God (i Cor. i. 24). Wherefore, in this sense, the sin
against the Son of Man will be that which is committed
through ignorance, or through weakness.

Reply Obj. 3. Sin committed through certain malice,
in so far as it results from the inclination of a habit, is not
a special sin, but a general condition of sin: whereas, in
so far as it results from a special contempt of an effect of
the Holy Ghost in us, it has the character of a special sin.
According to this interpretation the sin against the Holy
Ghost is a special kind of sin, as also according to the first
interpretation: whereas according to the second, it is not
a species of sin, because final impenitence may be a circum-
stance of any kind of sin.

Second Article.

whether it is fitting to distinguish six kinds
of sin against the holy ghost.

We proceed thus to the Second A rticle : —

Objection 1. It seems unfitting to distinguish six kinds
of sin against the Holy Ghost, viz. despair, presumption,
impenitence, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, envy
of our brother's spiritual good, which are assigned by
the Master (2 Sent., D. 43). For to deny God's justice
or mercy belongs to unbehef. Now, by despair, a man
rejects God's mercy, and by presumption, His justice.

o. 14. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 176

Therefore each of these is a kind of unbelief rather than of
the sin against the Holy (ihost.

Ohj. 2. Further, Impenitence, seemingly, regards past
sins, while obstinacy regards future sins. Now past and
future time do not diversify the species of virtues or vices,
since it is the same faith whereby we believe that Christ
was born, and those of old believed that He would be born.
Therefore obstinacy and impenitence should not be reckoned
as two species of the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 3. Further, Grace and truth came bv Jesus Christ
(John i. 17). Therefore it seems that resistance of the
known truth, and envy of a brother's spiritual good, belong
to blasphemy against the Son rather than against the Holy
Ghost.

Obj. 4. Further, Bernard says {De Dispens. et Prcecept. xi.)
that to refuse to obey is to resist the Holy Ghost. Moreover
a gloss on Lev. x. 16, says that a feigned repentance is a
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Again, schism is, seem-
ingly, directly opposed to the Holy Ghost by Whom the
Church is united together. Therefore it seems that the
species of sins against the Holy Ghost are insufficiently
enumerated.

On the contrary, Augustine (Fulgentius, — De Fide ad
Petrum iii.) says that those who despair of pardon for their
sins, or who without merits presume on God's mercy, sin
against the Holy Ghost, and (Enchirid. Ixxxiii.) that he who
dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy
Ghost, and {De Verb. Dom. xi.) that impenitence is a sin
against the Holy Ghost, and {De Serm. Dom. in monte i.),
that to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to
sin against the Holy Ghost, and in his book De unico Baptism 0
(De Bap. contra Donat. vi.) he says that a man who spurns
the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth
is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the
Church is taught, and therefore, seemingly, sins against
the Holy Ghost.

I answer that, The above species are fittingly assigned to
tlie sin against the Holy Ghost taken in the third sense,

1^^ SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST g. 14. Art. 2

because they are distinguished in respect of the removal
or contempt of those things whereby a man can be pre-
vented from sinning through choice. These things are
either on the part of God's judgment, or on the part of
His gifts, or on the part of sin. For, by the consideration
of the Divine judgment, wherein justice is accompanied
with mercy, man is hindered from sinning through choice,
both by hope, arising from the consideration of the mercy
that pardons sins and rewards good deeds, which hope
is removed by despair ; and by fear, arising from the con-
sideration of the Divine justice that punishes sins, which
fear is removed by presumption, when, namely, a man pre-
sumes that he can obtain glory without merits, or pardon
without repentance.

God's gifts whereby we are withdrawn from sin, are
two: one is the acknowledgment of the truth, against
which there is the resistance of the known truth, when,
namely, a man resists the truth which he has acknow-
ledged, in order to sin more freely: while the other is the
assistance of inward grace, against which there is envy of
a brother's spiritual good, when, namely, a man is envious
not only of his brother's person, but also of the increase
of Divine grace in the world.

On the part of sin, there are two things which may with-
draw man therefrom : one is the inordinateness and shameful-
ness of the act, the consideration of which is wont to arouse
man to repentance for the sin he has committed, and against
this there is impenitence, not as denoting permanence in
sin until death, in which sense it was taken above (for thus
it would not be a special sin, but a circumstance of sin),
but as denoting the purpose of not repenting. The other
thing . is the smallness or brevity of the good which is
sought in sin, according to Rom. vi. 21 : What fruit had you
therefore then in those things, of which you are noiv ashamed ?
The consideration of this is wont to prevent man's will
from being hardened in sin, and this is removed by obstinacy,
whereby man hardens his purpose by clinghig to sin. Of

these two it is written (Jerem. viii. 6) : There is none that
n. ii. 1 12

Q. 14. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 17S

doth penance for his sin, saying ': What have I done ? as
regards the first ; and, They are all turned to their own course,
as a horse rushing to the battle, as regards the second.

Reply Ohj. i. The sins of despair and presumption
consist, not in disbeheving in God's justice and mercy, but
in contemning them.

Reply Ohj. 2. Obstinacy and impenitence differ not only
in respect of past and future time, but also in respect of
certain formal aspects by reason of the diverse considera-
tion of those things which may be considered in sin, as
explained above.

Reply Ohj. 3. Grace and truth were the work of Christ
through the gifts of the Holy Ghost which He gave to men.

Reply Ohj . 4. To refuse to obey belongs to obstinacy,
while a feigned repentance belongs to impenitence, and
schism to the envy of a brother's spiritual good, whereby
the members of the Church are united together.

Third Article.

whether the sin against the holy ghost
can be forgiven ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the sin against the Holy Ghost
can be forgiven. For Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xi.) :
We should despair of no man, so long as Our Lord^s patience
brings him back to repentance. But if any sin cannot be
forgiven, it would be possible to despair of some sinners.
Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.

Ohj. 2. Further, No sin is forgiven, except through the
soul being healed by God. But no disease is incurable to
an all-powerful physician, as a gloss says on Ps. cii. 3,
Who healeth all thy diseases. Therefore the sin against
the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.

Ohj. 3. Further, The free-will is indifferent to either good
or evil. Now, so long as man is a wayfarer, he can fall
away from any virtue, since even an angel fell from heaven,

179 SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST Q. 14. Art. 3

wherefore it is written (Job iv. 18, 19) : In His angels He
found wickedness : how much more shall they that dwell in
houses of clay ? Therefore, in hke manner, a man can
return from any sin to the state of justice. Therefore the
sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.

On the contrary, It is written (Matth. xii. 31) : He that
shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not he forgiven him,
neither in this world, nor in the world to come : and Augustine
says {De Verb. Dom. i.) that so great is the downfall of this
sin that it cannot submit to the humiliation of asking for
pardon.

I answer that. According to the various interpretations
of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways
in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For
if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final
impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way
is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man per-
severes until death will not be forgiven in the life to come,
since it was not remitted by repentance in this life.

According to the other two interpretations, it is said to
be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but
because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardoned :
and this in two ways. First, as regards the punishment,
since he that sins through ignorance or weakness, deserves
less punishment, whereas he that sins through certain
malice, can offer no excuse in alleviation of his punishment.
Likewise those who blasphemed against the Son of Man
before His Godhead was revealed, could have some excuse,
on account of the weakness of the flesh which they per-
ceived in Him, and hence, they deserved less punishment;
whereas those who blasphemed against His very Godhead,
by ascribing to the devil the works of the Holy Ghost,
had no excuse in diminution of their punishment. Where-
fore, according to Chrysostom's commentary {Honi. xlii.
in Matth), the Jews are said not to be forgiven this sin,
neither in this world nor in the world to come, because they
were punished for it, both in the present life, through the
Romans, and in the life to come, in the pains of hell.

g. 14. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 180

Thus also Athanasius adduces the example of their fore-
fathers who, first of all, wrangled with Moses on account
of the shortage of water and bread ; and this the Lord bore
with patience, because they were to be excused on account
of the weakness of the flesh: but afterwards they sinned
more grievously, when, by ascribing to an idol the favours
bestowed by God Who had brought them out of Egypt,
they blasphemed, so to speak, against the Holy Ghost,
saying (Exod. xxxii. 4) : These are thy gods, 0 Israel, that
have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Therefore the
Lord both inflicted temporal punishment on them, since
there were slain on that day about three and twenty
thousand men {ibid. 28), and threatened them with punish-
ment in the life to come, saying, (ibid. 34): /, in the day
of revenge, will visit this sin . . . of theirs.

Secondly, this may be understood to refer to the guilt : thus
a disease is said to be incurable in respect of the nature of the
disease, which removes whatever might be a means of cure,
as when it takes away the power of nature, or causes loathing
for food and medicine, although God is able to cure such a
disease. So too, the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to
be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, in so far as it
remoyes those things which are a means towards the pardon
of sins. This does not, however, close the way of forgiveness
and healing to an all-powerful and merciful God, Who,
sometimes, by a miracle, so to speak, restores spiritual
health to such men.

Reply Ob]\ 1. We should despair of no man in this life,
considering God's omnipotence and mercy. But if we
consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Eph. ii. 2)
children of despair.'^

Reply Obj. 2. This argument considers the question on
the part of God's omnipotence, not on that of the circum-
stances of sin.

Reply Obj. 3. In this life the free-will does indeed ever
remain subject to change: yet sometimes it rejects that

* Filios diffidentice, which the Douay version renders children
of unbeliej.

i8i SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST Q. 14. Art. 4

whereby, so far as it is concerned, it can be turned to good.
Hence considered in itself this sin is unpardonable, although
God can pardon it.

Fourth Article.

whether a man can sin first 01' all acainst the

holy ghost ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that a man cannot sin first of all
against the Holy (jhost, without having previously com-
mitted other sins. For the natural order requires that one
should be moved to perfection from imperfection. This
is evident as regards good things, according to Prov. iv. i8 :
The path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards and
increases even to perfect day. Now, in evil things, the perfect
is the greatest evil, as the Philosopher states (Met. v.).
Since then the sin against the Holy (jhost is the most
grievous sin, it seems that man comes to commit this sin
through committing lesser sins.

Ohj. 2. Further, To sin against the Holy Ghost is to sin
through certain malice, or through choice. Now man
cannot do this until he has sinned many times; for the
Philosopher says (Ethic, v.) that although a man is able
to^ do unjust deeds, yet he cannot all at once do them as an
unjust man does, viz. from choice. Therefore it seems that
the sin against the Holy (rhost cannot be committed except
after other sins.

Obj. 3. Further, Repentance and impenitence are about
the same object. But there is no repentance, except about
past sins. Therefore the same applies to impenitence
which is a species of the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Therefore the sin against the Holy (yhost presupposes
other sins.

On the contrary, It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden
to make a poor man rich (Ecclus. xi. 23). Therefore, con-
versely, it is possible for a man. according to the malice
of the devil who tempts him, to be led to commit the

Q. 14. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 182

most grievous of sins which is that against the Holy
Ghost.

. / answer that, As stated above (A. i), in one way, to sin
against the Holy Ghost is to sin through certain malice.
Now one may sin through certain malice in two ways, as
stated in the same place: first, through the inclination of
a habit; but this is not, properly speaking, to sin against
the Holy Ghost, nor does a man come to commit this sin
all at once, in as much as sinful acts must precede so as to
cause the habit that induces to sin. Secondly, one may sin
through certain malice, by contemptuously rejecting the
things whereby a man is withdrawn from sin. This is,
properly speaking, to sin against the Holy Ghost, as stated
above (A. i) ; and this also, for the most part, presupposes
other sins, for it is written (Prov. xviii. 3) that the wicked
man, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth.

Nevertheless it is possible for a man, in his first sinful
act, to sin against the Holy Ghost by contempt, both on
account of his free-will, and on account of the many previous
dispositions, or again, through being vehemently moved
to evil, while but feebly attached to good. Hence never or
scarcely ever does it happen that the perfect sin all at once
against the Holy Ghost: wherefore Origen says {Peri
Archon i.) : / do not think that anyone who stands on the
highest step of perfection, can fail or fall suddenly ; this can
only happen by degrees and hit by bit.

The same applies, if the sin against the Holy Ghost be
dken literally for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
For such blasphemy as Our Lord speaks of, always proceeds
from contemptuous malice.

If, however, with Augustine (De Verb. Dom. xi.) we
understand the sin against the Holy Ghost to denote final
impenitence, it does not regard the question in point,
because this sin against the Holy Ghost requires persistence
in sin until the end of life.

Reply Obj. 1. Movement both in good and in evil is made,
for the most part, from imperfect to perfect, according as
man progresses in good or evil: and yet in both cases, one

i83 SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST Q. 14. Art. 4

man can begin from a greater (good or evil) than another
man does. Consequently, that from which a man begins
can be perfect in good or evil according to its genus, although
it may be imperfect as regards the series of good or evil
actions whereby a man progresses in good or evil.

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument considers the sin which
is committed through certain malice, when it proceeds
from the inclination of a habit.

Reply Ohj. 3. If by impenitence we understand with
Augustine {loc. cit) persistence in sin until the end, it is
clear that it presupposes sin, just as repentance does.
If, however, we take it for habitual impenitence, in which
sense it is a sin against the Holy Ghost, it is evident that
it can precede sin : for it is possible for a man who has never
sinned to have the purpose either of repenting or of not
repenting, if he should happen to sin.

QUESTION XV.

OF THE VICES OPPOSED TO KNOWLEDGE AND
UNDERSTANDING.

[In Three Articles.)

We must now consider the vices opposed to knowledge
and understanding. Since, however, we have treated of
ignorance which is opposed to knowledge, when we were
discussing the causes of sins (I. -II., Q. LXXVI.), we must
now inquire about blindness of mind and dulness of sense,
which are opposed to the gift of understanding; and under
this head there are three points of inquiry: (i) Whether
blindness of mind is a sin ? (2) Whether dulness of sense
is a sin distinct from bhndness of mind ? (3) Whether
these vices arise from sins of the flesh ?

First Article,
whether blindness of mind is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article :■ —

Objection 1. It seems that blindness of mind is not a
sin. Because, seemingly, that which excuses from sin is
not itself a sin. Now bhndness of mind excuses from sin;
for it is written (John ix. 41) : If you were blind, you should
not have sin. Therefore blindness of mind is not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Punishment differs from guilt. But
blindness of mind is a punishment, .as appears from
Isa. vi. 10, Blind the heart of this people, for, since it is an
evil, it could not be from God, were it not a punishment.
Therefore blindness of mind is not a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Every sin is voluntary, according to
Augustine {De Vera Relig. xiv.). Now bhndness of mind

184

i85 SINS ACiAINST UNDERSTANDlNCi Q. 15. Art. i

is not voluntary, since, as Augustine says (Conf. x.),
all love to know the resplendent truth, and as we read in
Eccles. xi. 7, the light is sweet and it is delightful for the eyes
to see the sun. Therefore blindness of mind is not a sin.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral, xxxi.) reckons blindness
of mind among the vices arising from lust.

/ answer that. Just as bodily blindness is the privation
of the principle of bodily sight, so blindness of mind is
the privation of the principle of mental or intellectual
sight. Now this has a threefold principle. One is the
light of natural reason, which light, since it pertains to
the species of the rational soul, is never forfeit from the soul,
and yet, at times, it is prevented from exercising its proper
act, through being hindered by the lower powers, which the
human intellect needs in order to understand, for instance
in the case of imbeciles and madmen, as stated in the First
Part (Q. LXXXIV., AA. 7, 8).

Another principle of intellectual sight is a certain habitual
light superadded to the natural light of reason, which light
is sometimes forfeit from the soul. This privation is
blindness, and is a punishment, in so far as the privation
of the light of grace is a punishment. Hence it is written
concerning some (Wis. ii. 21): Their own malice blinded
them.

A third principle of intellectual sight is an intelligible
principle, through which a man understands other things;
to which principle a man may attend or not attend. That
he does not attend thereto happens in two ways. Sometimes
it is due to the fact that a man's will is deliberately turned
away from the consideration of that principle, according
to Ps. xxxv. 5, He imuld not understand, that he might do
well : whereas sometimes it is due to the mind being more
busy about things which it loves more, so as to be hindered
thereby from considering this principle, according to Ps.
Ivii. (), Fire, i.e. of concupiscence, hath fallen on them and
they shall not sec the sun. In either of these ways blindness
of mind is a sin.

Reply Ohj. i. \hv bhndness that excuses from sin is that

g. 15. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 186

which arises from the natural defect of one who cannot
see.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument considers the second kind
of bhndness which is a punishment.

Reply Obj. 3. To understand the truth is, in itself, beloved
by all; and yet, accidentally it may be hateful to someone,
in so far as a man is hindered thereby from having what he
oves yet more.

Second Article.

whether dulness of sense is a sin distinct
from blindness of mind ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that dulness of sense is not a dis-
tinct sin from blindness of the mind. Because one thing
has one contrary. Now dulness is opposed to the gift
of understanding, according to Gregory (Moral, ii.); and
so is blindness of mind, since understanding denotes a
principle of sight. Therefore dulness of sense is the same
as blindness of mind.

Obj. 2. Further, Gregory {Moral, xxxi.) in speaking of
dulness describes it as dulness of sense in respect of under-
standing. Now dulness of sense in respect of understanding
seems to be the same as a defect in understanding, which
pertains to blindness of mind. Therefore dulness of sense
is the same as blindness of mind.

Obj. 3. Further, If they differ at all, it seems to be chiefly
in the fact that blindness of mind is voluntary, as stated
above (A. i), while dulness of sense is a natural defect.
But a natural defect is not a sin: so that, accordingly,
dulness of sense would not be a sin, which is contrary to
what Gregory says {loc. cit.), where he reckons it among the
sins arising from gluttony.

On the contrary, Different causes produce different effects.
Now Gregory says (ibid.) that dulness of sense arises from
gluttony, and that blindness of mind arises from lust.
Now these others are different vices. Therefore those are
different vices also.

i87 SINS AGAINST UNDERSTANDING Q. 15. Art. 2

/ answer thai, Dull is opposed to sharp : and a thing is said
to be sharp because it can pierce; so that a thing is called
dull through being obtuse and unable to pierce. Now a
bodily sense, by a kind of metaphor, is said to pierce the
medium, in so far as it perceives its object from a distance,
or is able by penetration as it were to perceive the smallest
details or the inmost parts of a thing. Hence in corporeal
things the senses are said to be acute when they can perceive
a sensible object from afar, by sight, hearing, or scent,
while on the other hand they are said to be dull, through
being unable to perceive, except sensible objects that are
near at hand, or of great power.

Now, by way of similitude to bodily sense, we speak of
sense in connection with the intellect ; and this latter sense
is in respect of certain primals and extremes, as stated in
Ethic, vi., even as the senses are cognizant of sensible objects
as of certain principles of knowledge. Now this sense
which is connected with understanding, does not perceive
its object through a medium of corporeal distance, but
through certain other media, as, for instance, when it
perceives a thing's essence through a property thereof,
and the cause through its effect. Consequently a man is
said to have an acute sense in connection with his under-
standing, if, as soon as he apprehends a property or effect
of a thing, he understands the nature of the thing itself, and
if he can succeed in perceiving its slightest details : whereas
a man is said to have a dull sense in connection with his
understanding, if he cannot arrive at knowing the truth
about a thing, without many explanations; in which case,
moreover, he is unable to obtain a perfect perception of
everything pertaining to the nature of that thing.

Accordingly dulness of sense in connection with under-
standing denotes a certain weakness of the mind as to
the consideration of spiritual goods; while blindness of
mind implies the complete privation of the knowledge
of such things. Both are opposed to the gift of under-
standing, whereby a man knows spiritual goods by appre-
hending them, and has a subtle penetration of their inmost

o. 15. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOCiICA " 188

nature. This dulness has the character of sin, just as
blindness of mind has, that is, in so far as it is voluntary,
as evidenced in one who, owing to his affection for carnal
things, dislikes or neglects the careful consideration of
spiritual things.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Third Article.

whether blindness of mind and dulness of
sense arise from sins of the flesh ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that blindness of mind and dulness
of sense do not arise from sins of the flesh. For Augustine
(Retract, i.) retracts what he had said in his Soliloquies
(I. i.), God Who didst wish none but the clean to know the
truth, and says that one might reply that many, even those
who are unclean, know many truths. Now men become un-
clean chiefly by sins of the flesh. Therefore blindness of
mind and dulness of sense are not caused by sins of the
flesh.

Obj. 2. Further, Blindness of mind and dulness of sense
are defects in connection with the intellective part of the
soul: whereas carnal sins pertain to the corruption of the
flesh. But the flesh does not act on the soul, but rather
the reverse. Therefore the sins of the flesh do not cause
blindness of mind and dulness of sense .

Obj. 3. Further, All things are more passive to what is
near them than to what is remote. Now spiritual vices
are nearer the mind than carnal vices are. The re f re
blindness of mind and dulness of sense are caused by
spiritual rather than by carnal vices.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral, xxxi.) that dulness
of sense arises from gluttony, and blindness of mind from
lust.

/ answer that, The perfect intellectual operation in man
consists in an abstraction from sensible phantasms, where-

i89 SINS AdAlNST UN'J)EKSTAXDli\(i g. 15. Am. 3

fore the more a man's intellect is freed from those phan-
tasms, the more thoroughly will it be able to consider things
intelligible, and to set in order all things sensible. Thus
Anaxagoras stated that the intellect requires to be detached
in order to command, and that the agent must have power
over matter, in order to be able to move it. Now it is
evident that pleasure fixes a man's attention on that which
he takes pleasure in: wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. X.) that we all do best that which we take pleasure
in doing, while as to other things, we do them either not at
all, or in a faint-hearted fashion.

Now carnal vices, namely gluttony and lust, are concerned
with pleasures of touch in matters of food and sex; and
these are the most impetuous of all pleasures of the body.
For this reason these vices cause man's attention to be very
firmly fixed on corporeal things, so that in consequence
man's operation in regard to intelligible things is weakened,
more, however, by lust than by gluttony, forasmuch as
sexual pleasures are more vehement than those of the
table. Wherefore lust gives rise to blindness of mind,
which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual
things, while dulness of sense arises from gluttony, which
makes a man weak in regard to the same intelligible
things. On the other hand, the contrary virtues, viz.
abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the
perfection of intellectual operation. Hence it is written
(Dan. i. 17) that to these children on account of their absti-
nence and continency, God gave knowledge and understanding
in every hook, and wisdom.

Reply Obj. i. Although some who are the slaves of
carnal vices are at times capable of subtle considerations
about intelligible things, on account of the perfection of
their natural genius, or of some habit superadded thereto,
nevertheless, on account of the pleasures of the body, it
must needs happen that their attention is frequently
withdrawn from this subtle contemplation: wherefore the
unclean can know some truths, but their uncleanness is
a clog on their knowledge.

g. 15. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 190

Reply Obj. 2. The flesh acts on the intellective faculties,
not by altering them, but by impeding their operation in
the aforesaid manner.

Reply Obj. 3. It is owing to the fact that the carnal vices
are further removed from the mind, that they distract
the mind's attention to more remote things, so that they
hinder the mind's contemplation all the more.

QUESTION XVI.

OF THE PRECEPTS OF FAITH, KNOWLEDGE AND
UNDERSTANDING.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider the precepts pertaining to the
aforesaid, and under this head there are two points of
inquiry: (i) The precepts concerning faith: (2) The precepts
concerning the gifts of knowledge and understanding.

r First Article.

WHETHER IN THE OLD LAW THERE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GIVEN PRECEPTS OF FAITH ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that, in the Old Law there should
have been given precepts of faith. Because a precept is
about something due and necessary. Now it is most
necessary for man that he should believe, according to
Heb. xi. 6, Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Therefore there was very great need for precepts of faith
to be given.

Obj. 2. Further, The New Testament is contained in
the Old, as the reality in the figure, as stated above
(I.-IL, 0. CVIL, A. 3). Now the New Testament contains
explicit precepts of faith, for instance John xiv. i: You
believe in God ; believe also in Me. Therefore it seems that
some precepts of faith ought to have been given in the
Old Law also.

Obj. 3. Further, To prescribe the act of a virtue comes
to the same as to forbid the opposite vices. Now the Old

191

Q. i6. Art. i TUK " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 192

Law contained many precepts forbidding unbelief: thus
(Exod. XX. 3) : Thou shall not have slrange gods before Me,
and (Deut. xiii. 1-3) they were forbidden to hear the words
of the prophet or dreamer who might wish to turn them
away from their faith in God. Therefore precepts of faith
should have been given in the Old Law also.

Obj. 4. Further, Confession is an act of faith, as stated
above (Q. IIL, A. i). Now the Old Law contained precepts
about the confession and the promulgation of faith: for
they were commanded (Exod. xii. 27) that, when their
children should ask them, they should tell them the mean-
ing of the paschal observance, and (Deut. xiii. 9) they were
commanded to slay anyone who disseminated doctrine
contrary to faith. Therefore the Old Law should have
contained precepts of faith.

Obj. 5. Further, All the books of the Old Testament are
contained in the Old Law; wherefore Our Lord said (John
XV. 25) that it was written in the Law: They have hated Me
without cause, although this is found written in Ps. xxxiv.
and Ixviii. Now it is written (Ecclus. ii. 8) : Ye that fear
the Lord, believe Him. Therefore the Old Law should have
contained precepts of faith.

On the contrary, The Apostle (Rom. iii. 27) calls the Old
Law the law of works which he contrasts with the law of
faith. Therefore the Old Law ought not to have contained
precepts of faith.

/ answer that, A master does not impose laws on others
than his subjects ; wherefore the precepts of a law presuppose
that everyone who receives the law is subject to the giver
of the law. Now the primary subjection of man to God
is by faith, according to Heb. xi. 6: He that cometh to God,
must believe that He is. Hence faith is presupposed to the
precepts of the Law: for which reason (Exod. xx. 2) that
which is of faith, is set down before the legal precepts,
in the words, / am the Lord thy God, Who brought thee out
of the land of Egypt, and, likewise (Deut. vi. 4), the words,
Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord thy (Vulg., — our) God is one, precede
the recording of the precepts.

193 PRECEPTS OF FAITH, ETC. Q. i6. Art. i

Since, however, faith contains many things subordinate to
the faith whereby we beheve that (iod is, which is the first
and chief of all articles of faith, as stated above (Q. I.,
AA. I, 7), it follows that, if we presuppose faith in God,
whereby man's mind is subjected to Him, it is possible for
precepts to be given about other articles of faith. Thus
Augustine expounding the words : This is My commandment
(John XV. 12) says (Tract. Ixxxiii. in Joan.) that we have
received many precepts of faith. In the Old Law, however,
the secret things of faith were not to be set before the
people, wherefore, presupposing their faith in one God,
no other precepts of faith were given in the Old Law.

Reply Ohj. i. Faith is necessary as being the principle
of spiritual life, wherefore it is presupposed before the
receiving of the Law.

Reply Ohj. 2. Even then Our Lord both presupposed
something of faith, namely belief in one God, when He
said: You believe in God, and commanded something,
namely, behef in the Incarnation, whereby one Person is
God and man. This explanation of faith belongs to the
f aith of the New Testament, wherefore He added : Believe
also in Me.

Reply Ohj. 3. The prohibitive precepts regard sins, which
corrupt virtue. Now virtue is corrupted by any particular
defect, as stated above (I. -II., Q. XVIII., A. 4, ad 3:
Q. XIX., A. 6, ad i, A. 7, ad 3). Therefore faith in one God
being presupposed, prohibitive precepts had to be given in
the Old Law, so that men might be warned off those particu-
lar defects whereby their faith might be corrupted.

Reply Ohj. 4. Confession of faith and the teaching thereof

also presuppose man's submission to God by faith: so

that the Old Law could contain precepts relating to the

confession and teaching of faith, rather than to faith

tself.

Reply Ohj. 5. In this passage, again, that faith is pre-
supposed whereby we believe that God is; hence it begins,
Ye that fear the Lord, which is not possible without faith.
The words which follow, — believe Hi))i, must be referred to

11. ii. 1 13

Q. i6. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 194

certain special articles of faith, chiefly to those things
which God promises to them that obey Him, wherefore
the passage concludes, — and your reward shall not he made
void.

Second Article.

whether the precepts referring to knowledge and
understanding were fittingly set down in the

OLD LAW ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the precepts referring to
knowledge and understanding were unfittingly set down
in the Old Law. For knowledge and understanding pertain
to cognition. Now cognition precedes and directs action.
Therefore the precepts referring to knowledge and under-
standing should precede the precepts of the Law referring
to action. Since, then, the first precepts of the Law are
those of the decalogue, it seems that precepts of knowledge
and understanding should have been given a place among
the precepts of the decalogue.

Ohj, 2. Further, Learning precedes teaching, for a man
must learn from another before he teaches another. Now
the Old Law contains precepts about teaching, — both affirma-
tive precepts, as, for example (Deut. iv. 9), Thou shalt teach
them to thy sons, and to thy grandsons, — and prohibitive
precepts, as, for instance (Deut. iv. 2), You shall not add
to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from
it. Therefore it seems that man ought to have been given
also some precepts directing him to learn.

Ohj. 3. Further, Knowledge and understanding seem
more necessary to a priest than to a king, wherefore it is
written (Malach. ii. 7): The lips of the priest shall keep
knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, and
(Osee iv. 6) : Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will
reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to
Me. Now the king is commanded to learn knowledge of the
Law (Deut. xvii. 18, 19). Much more, therefore, should
the Law have commanded the priests to learnthe Law,

195 PRECEPTS OF FAITH, ETC. Q. i6. Art. 2

Ohj. 4. Further, It is not possible while asleep to meditate
on things pertaining to knowledge and understanding : more-
over it is hindered by extraneous occupations. Therefore it
is unfittingly commanded (Deut. vi. 7) : Thou shall meditale
upon them silting in thy house, and walking on thy journey ,
sleeping and rising. Therefore the precepts relating to know-
ledge and understanding are unfittingly set down in the Law.

On the contrary, It is written (Deut. iv. 6): That, hearing
all these precepts, they may say, Behold a wise and under-
standing people.

I answer that, Three things may be considered in relation
to knowledge and understanding: first, the reception
thereof; secondly, the use; and thirdly, their preservation.
Now the reception of knowledge or understanding, is by
means of teaching and learning, and both are prescribed
in the Law. For it is written (Deut. vi. 6): These words
which I command thee . . ., shall be in thy heart. This
refers to learning, since it is the duty of a disciple to
apply his mind to what is said, while the words that follow,
— and thou shall tell them to thy children, refer to teaching.

The use of knowledge and understanding is the meditation
on those things which one knows or understands. In
reference to this, the text goes on, — thou shall meditate upon
them sitting in thy house, etc.

Their preservation is effected by the memory, and, as
regards this, the text continues, — -and thou shall bind them
as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between
thy eyes. And thou shall write them in the entry, and on the
doors of thy house. Thus the continual remembrance of
God's commandments is signified, since it is impossible
for us to forget those things which are continually attracting
the notice of our senses, whether by touch, as those things
we hold in our hands, or by sight, as those things which arc
ever before our eyes, or to which we are continually returning,
for instance, to the house door. Moreover it is clearly
stated (Deut. iv. 9) : Forget not the words that thy eyes hiive
seen and let them not go out of thy heart all the days of thy life.

We read of these things also being commanded more

v}. 16. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 196

notably in the New Testament, both in the teaching of
the Gospel and in that of the apostles.

Reply Ohj. 1. According to Deut. iv. 6, this is your wisdom
and understanding in the sight of the nations. By this we
are given to understand that the wisdom and understanding
of those who believe in (iod consist in the precepts of the
Law. Wherefore the precepts of the Law had to' be given
first, and afterwards men had to be led to know and under-
stand them, and so it was not fitting that the aforesaid
precepts should be placed among the precepts of the deca-
logue which take the first place.

Reply Ohj. 2. There are also in the Law precepts relating
to learning, as stated above. Nevertheless teaching was
commanded more expressly than learning, because it con-
cerned the learned, who were not under any other authority,
but were immediately under the law, and to them the pre-
cepts of the Law were given. On the other hand learning
concerned the people of lower degree, and these the precepts
of the Law have to reach through the learned.

Reply Ohj. 3. Knowledge of the Law is so closely bound
up with the priestly office that being charged with the office
implies being charged to know the Law: hence there was
no need for special precepts to be given about the training
of the priests. On the other hand, the doctrine of God's
law is not so bound up with the kingly office, because a
king is placed over his people in temporal matters: hence
it is especially commanded that the king should be instructed
by the priests about things pertaining to the law of God.

Reply Ohj. 4. That precept of the Law does not mean
that man should meditate on God's law by sleeping, but
during sleep, i.e. that he should meditate on the law of God
when he is preparing to sleep, because this leads to his having
better phantasms while asleep, in so far as our movements
pass from the state of vigil to the state of sleep, as the
Philosopher explains [Ethic, i.). In like manner we are
commanded to meditate on the Law in every action of ours,
not that we are bound to be always actually thinking
about the Law, but that we should regulate all our actions
according to it*

OUESTION XVII.

OF HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSEEF.

{In Eight Articles.)

After treating of faith, we must consider hope, and
(i) hope itself; (2) the gift of fear; (3) the contrary vices;
(4) the corresponding precepts. The first of these points
gives rise to a twofold consideration: (i) Hope, considered
in itself: (2) Its subject.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:
(i) Whether hope is a virtue ? (2) Whether its object
is eternal happiness ? (3) Whether, by the virtue of hope,
one man may hope for another's happiness ? (4) Whether
a man may lawfully hope in man ? (5) Whether hope is
a theological virtue ? (6) Of its distinction from the
other theological virtues: (7) Of its relation to faith:
(8) Of its relation to charity.

First Article,
whether hope is a virtue ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that hope is not a virtue. For no
man makes ill use of a virtue, as Augustine states (De Lib.
Arb. ii.). But one may make ill use of hope, since the
passion of hope, like the other passions, is subject to a
mean and extremes. Therefore hope is not a virtue.

Obj. 2. Further, No virtue results from merits, since
God works virtue in us ivithoiit us, as Augustine states
iJDc Graf, ct Lib. Arb. xvii.). But hope is caused by grace
and merits, according to the Master (3 Sent., D. 26).
Therefore hope is not a virtue.

197

Q. 17. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 198

Obj. 3. Further, Virtue is the disposition of a perfect thing
(Phys. vii.). But hope is the disposition of an imperfect
thing, of one, namely, that lacks what it hopes to have.
Therefore hope is not a virtue.

On the contrary, Gregory says {Moral, i.) that the three
daughters of Job signify these three virtues, faith, hope
and charity. Therefore hope is a virtue.

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic, ii.)
the virtue of a thing is that which makes its subject good, and
its work good likewise. Consequently wherever we find
a good human act, it must correspond to some human
virtue. Now in all things measured and ruled, the good is
that which attains its proper rule : thus we say that a coat
is good if it neither exceeds nor falls short of its proper
measurement. But, as we stated above (Q. VIIL, A. 3,
ad 3) human acts have a twofold measure ; one is proximate
and homogeneous, viz. the reason, while the other is remote
and excelling, viz. God: wherefore every human act is good,
which attains reason or God Himself. Now the act of
hope, whereof we speak now, attains God. For, as we
have already stated (T-IL, Q. XL., A. i), when we were
treating of the passion of hope, the object of hope is a
future good, difficult but possible to obtain. Now a thing
is possible to us in two ways : first, by ourselves, secondly, by
means of others, as stated in Ethic, iii. Wherefore, in so
far as we hope for anything as being possible to us by means
of the Divine assistance, our hope attains God Himself,
on Whose help it leans. It is therefore evident that hope
is a virtue, since it causes a human act to be good and to
attain its due rule.

Reply Obj. i. In the passions, the mean of virtue depends
on right reason being attained, wherein also consists the
essence of virtue. Wherefore in hope too, the good of
virtue depends on a man's attaining, by hoping, the due
rule, viz. God. Consequently man cannot make ill use
of hope which attains God, as neither can he make ill use
of moral virtue which attains the reason, because to attain
thus is to make good use of virtue. Nevertheless, the hope

199 HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 17. Art. 2

of which we speak now, is not a passion but a habit of the
mind, as we shall show further on (A. 5: Q. XVIII. , A. i).

Reply Ohj. 2. Hope is said to arise from merits, as regards
the thing hoped for, in so far as we hope to obtain happiness
by means of grace and merits ; or as regards the act of living
hope. The habit itself of hope, whereby we hope to obtain
happiness, does not flow from our merits, but from grace
alone.

Reply Ohj. 3. He who hopes is indeed imperfect in relation
to that which he hopes to obtain, but has not as yet; yet
he is perfect, in so far as he already attains his proper rule,
viz. God, on Whose help he leans.

Second Article,
whether eternal happiness is the proper object

OF HOPE ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that eternal happiness is not the
proper object of hope. For a man does not hope for that
which surpasses every movement of his soul, since hope
itself is a movement of the soul. Now eternal happiness
surpasses every movement of the human soul, for the
Apostle says (i Cor. ii. 9) that it hath not entered into the
heart of man. Therefore happiness is not the proper object
of hope.

Ohj. 2. Further, Prayer is an expression of hope, for it
is written (Ps. xxxvi. 5) : Commit thy way to the Lord, and
trust in Him, and He will do it. Now it is lawful for man
to pray God not only for eternal happiness, but also for
the goods, both temporal and spiritual, of the present life,
and, as evidenced by the Lord's prayer, to be delivered
from evils which will no longer be in eternal happiness.
Therefore eternal happiness is not the proper object of
hope.

Ohj. 3. Further, The object of hope is something diflicult.
Now many things besides eternal happiness arc dithcult

Q. 17. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 200

to man. Therefore eternal happiness is not the proper
object of hope.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. vi. 19) that we
have hope which enter eth in, i.e. maketh us to enter . . .
ivithin the veil, i.e. into the happiness of heaven, according
to the interpretation of a gloss on these words. Therefore
the object of hope is eternal happiness.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), the hope of which
we speak now, attains God by leaning on His help in order
to obtain the hoped for good. Now an effect must be
proportionate to its cause. Wherefore the good which
we ought to hope for from God properly and chiefly, is
the infinite good, which is proportionate to the power of
our Divine Helper, since it belongs to an infinite power to
lead anyone to an infinite good. Such a good is eternal
life, which consists in the enjoyment of God Himself.
For we should hope from Him for nothing less than Himself,
since His goodness, whereby he imparts good things to
His creature, is no less than His Essence. Therefore the
proper and principal object of hope is eternal happiness.

Reply Ohj . i. Eternal happiness does not enter into the
heart of man perfectly, i.e. so that it be possible for a
wayfarer to know its nature and quality; yet, under the
general notion of the perfect good, it is possible for it to
be apprehended by a man, and it is in this way that the
movement of hope towards it arises. Hence the Apostle
says pointedly (Heb. vi. 19) that hope enters in, even within
the veil, because that which we hope for is as yet veiled
so to speak.

Reply Ohj. 2. We ought not to pray God for any other
goods, except in reference to eternal happiness. Hence
hope regards eternal happiness chiefly, and other things,
for which we pray God, it regards secondarily and as referred
to eternal happiness: just as faith regards God principally,
and, secondarily, those things which are referred to God,
as stated above (Q. I., A. i).

Reply Ohj. 3. To him that longs for something great,
all lesser things seem small; wherefore to him that hopes

201 HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF g. 17. Art. 3

for eternal liappiness, nothing else appears arduous, as
compared with that hope ; although, as compared with the
capability of the man who hopes, other things besides
may be arduous to him, so that he may have hope for such
things in reference to its principal object.

Third Aktrlk,

whether one man may hope for another's
eternal happiness ?

Wc proceed thus to the Third A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that one may hope for another's
eternal happiness. For the Apostle says (Philip, i. 6) :
Being confident of this very thing, that He Who hath begun
a good work in you, imll perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ,
Now the perfection of that day will be eternal happiness.
Therefore one man may hope for another's eternal
happiness.

Obj. 2. Further, Whatever we ask of God, we hope to
obtain from Him. But we ask God to bring others to eternal
happiness, according to James v. 16: Pray for one another
that you may be saved. Therefore we can hope for another's
eternal happiness.

Obj. 3. Further, Hope and despair are about the same
object. Now it is possible to despair of another's eternal
happiness, else Augustine would have no reason for saying
that we should not despair of anyone so long as he lives
{Serm. xi.). Therefore one can also hope for another's
eternal salvation.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchirid. viii.) that
hope is only of such things as belong to Jiini icho is supposed
to hope for them.

I answer that. We can hope for something in two ways:
first, absolutely, and thus the object of hope is always
something arduous and pertaining to the p.Mson who hopes.
Secondly, we can hope for something, through something
else being presupposed, and in this way its object can be

Q. 17. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 202

something pertaining to someone else. In order to explain
this we must observe that love and hope differ in this, that
love denotes union between lover and beloved, while hope
denotes a movement or a stretching forth of the appetite
towards an arduous good. Now union is of things that are
distinct, wherefore love can directly regard the other
whom a man unites to himself by love, looking upon him
as his other self: whereas movement is always towards
its own term which is proportionate to the subject moved.
Therefore hope regards directly one's own good, and not
that which pertains to another. Yet if we presuppose
the union of love with another, a man can hope for and
desire something for another man, as for himself; and,
accordingly, he can hope for another's eternal life, inasmuch
as he is united to him by love, and just as it is the same
. virtue of charity whereby a man loves God, himself, and his
neighbour, so too it is the same virtue of hope, whereby
a man hopes for himself and for another.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Fourth Article,
whether a man can lawfully hope in man ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that one may lawfully hope in
man. For the object of hope is eternal happiness. Now
we are helped to obtain eternal happiness by the patronage
of the saints, for Gregory says [Dialog, i.) that predestination
is furthered by the saints'' prayers. Therefore one may hope
in man.

Obj. 2. Further, If a man may not hope in another man,
it ought not to be reckoned a sin in a man, that one should
not be able to hope in him. Yet this is reckoned a vice
in some, as appears from Jer. ix. 4 : Let every man take heed
of his neighbour, and let him not trust in any brother of his.
Therefore it is lawful to trust in a man.

Obj. 3. Further, Prayer is the expression of hope, as

203 HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q 17. Art. 5

stated above (A. 2, Obj. 2). But it is lawful to pray to a
man for something. Therefore it is lawful to hope in him.

On the contrary, It is written (Jer. xvii. 5) : Cursed he the
man that trusteth in man.

I answer that, Hope, as stated above (A. i : I. -II., Q. XL.,
A. 7), regards two things, viz. the good which it intends to
obtain, and the help by which that good is obtained. Now
the good which a man hopes to obtain, has the aspect of a
final cause, while the help by which one hopes to obtain that
good, has the character of an efficient cause. Now in each
of these kinds of cause we find a principal and a secondary
cause. For the principal end is the last end, while the
secondary end is that which is referred to an end. In like
manner the principal efficient cause is the first agent, while
the secondary efficient cause is the secondary and instru-
mental agent. Now hope regards eternal happiness as its
last end, and the Divine assistance as the first cause leading
to happiness.

Accordingly, just as it is not lawful to hope for any good
save happiness, as one's last end, but only as something
referred to final happiness, so too, it is unlawful to hope in
any man, or any creature, as though it were the first cause
of movement towards happiness. It is, however, lawful to
hope in a man or a creature as being the secondary and
instrumental agent, through whom one is helped to obtain
any goods that are ordained to happiness. It is in this way
that we turn to the saints, and that we ask men also for
certain things; and for this reason some are blamed in that
they cannot be trusted to give help.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Fifth Article,
whether hope is a theological virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that hope is not a theological virtue.
For a theological virtue is one that has God for its object.
Now hope has for its object not only God but also other goods

Q. 17. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 204

which wc hope to obtain from God. Therefore hope is not
a theological virtue.

Obi. 2 . P'urther, A theological virtue is not a mean between
two vices, as stated above (L-IL, Q. LXIV., A. 4). But
hope is a mean between presumption and despair. There-
fore hope is not a theological virtue.

Ob]\ 3. Further, Expectation belongs to longanimity
which is a species of fortitude. Since, then, hope is a kind
of expectation, it seems that hope is not a theological, but
a moral virtue.

Obj. 4. Further, The object of hope is something arduous.
But it belongs to magnanimity, which is a moral virtue, to
tend to the arduous. Therefore hope is a moral, and not a
theological, virtue.

On the contrary, Hope is enumerated (i Cor. xiii.) together
with faith and charity, which are theological virtues.

/ answer that, Since specific differences, by their very
nature, divide a genus, in order to decide under what
division we must place hope, we must observe whence it
derives its character of virtue.

Now it has been stated above (A. i) that hope has the
character of virtue from the fact that it attains the supreme
rule of human actions: and this it attains both as its first
efficient cause, in as much as it leans on its assistance, and
as its last final cause, in as much as it expects happiness in
the enjoyment thereof. Hence it is evident that God is
the principal object of hope, considered as a virtue. Since,
then, the very idea of a theological virtue is one that has
God for its object, as stated above (L-H., Q. LXH., A. i),
it is evident that hope is a theological virtue.

Reply Obj. 1. Whatever else hope expects to obtain, it
hopes for it in reference to God as the last end, or as the
first efficient cause, as stated above (A. 4)-.

Reply Obj. 2. In things measured and ruled the mean
consists in the measure or rule being attained; if we go
beyond the rule, there is excess, if we fall short of the rule,
there is deficiency. But in the rule or measure itself there
is no such thing as a mean or extremes. Now a moral virtue

205 HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 17. Art. 6

is concerned with things ruled by reason, and these things are
its proper object ; wherefore it is proper to it to follow the
mean as regards its proper object. On the other hand, a theo-
logical virtue is concerned with the First Rule not ruled by
another rule, and that Rule is its proper object. Wherefore
it is not proper for a theological virtue, with regard to its
proper object, to follow the mean, although this may happen
to it accidentally with regard to something that is referred to
its principal object . Thus faith can have no mean or extremes
in the point of trusting to the First Truth, in which it is
impossible to trust too much; whereas on the part of the
things believed, it may have a mean and extremes; for
instance one truth is a mean between two falsehoods. So
too, hope has no mean or extremes, as regards its principal
object, since it is impossible to trust too much in the Divine
assistance ; yet it may have a mean and extremes, as regards
thosj things a man trusts to obtain, in so far as he either
presumes above his capability, or despairs of things of which
he is capable.

Reply Obj. 3. The expectation which is mentioned in the
definition of hope does not imply delay, as does the expecta-
tion which belongs to longanimity. It implies a reference
to the Divine assistance, whether that which we hope for be
delayed or not.

Reply Obj. 4. Magnanimity tends to something arduous
in the hope of obtaining something that is within one's
power, wherefore its proper object is the doing of great
things. On the other hand hope, as a theological virtue,
regards something arduous, to be obtained by another's
help, as stated above (A. i).

Sixth Article,
whether hope is distinct from the other theological

VIRTUES ?

We proceed thus to the Si.xtJi Article : —
Objection i. It seems that hope is not distinct from the
other theological virtues. For habits are distinguished by

Q. 17. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 206

their objects, as stated above (I. -II., Q. LIV., A. 2). Now
the object of hope is the same as of the other theological
virtues. Therefore hope is not distinct from the other
theological virtues.

Obj. 2. Further, In the symbol of faith, whereby we make
profession of faith, we say : I expect the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Now expectation of future
happiness belongs to hope, as stated above (A. 5). There-
fore hope is not distinct from faith.

Ohj. 3. Further, By hope man tends to God. But this
belongs properly to charity. Therefore hope is not dis-
tinct from charity.

On the contrary, There cannot be number without distinc-
tion. Now hope is numbered with the other theological
virtues : for Gregory says (Moral, i.) that the three virtues
are faith, hope, and charity. Therefore hope is distinct
from the theological virtues.

/ answer that, A virtue is said to be theological from having
God for the object to which it adheres. Now one may ad-
here to a thing in two ways : first, for its own sake, secondly,
because something else is attained thereby. Accordingly
charity makes us adhere to God for His own sake, uniting our
minds to God by the emotion of love.

On the other hand, hope and faith make man adhere to
God as to a principle where from certain things accrue to us.
Now we derive from God both knowledge of truth and the
attainment of perfect goodness. Accordingly faith makes
us adhere to God, as the source whence we derive the know-
ledge of truth, since we believe that what God tells us is
true: while hope makes us adhere to God, as the source
whence we derive perfect goodness, i.e. in so far as, by hope,
we trust to the Divine assistance for obtaining happiness.

Reply Ohj. i. God is the object of these virtues under
different aspects, as stated above : and a different aspect of
the object suffices for the distinction of habits, as stated
above (I.-II., Q. LIV., A. 2).

Reply Ohj. 2. Expectation is mentioned in the symbol of
faith, not as though it were the proper act of faith, but

207 HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 17. Art. 7

because the act of hope presupposes the act of faith, as we
shall state further on (A. 7). Hence an act of faith is
expressed in the act of hope.

Reply Ohj. 3. Hope makes us tend to God, as to a good
to be obtained finally, and as to a helper strong to assist:
whereas charity, properly speaking, makes us tend to God,
by uniting our affections to Him, so that we live, not for
ourselves, but for God.

Seventh Article,
whether hope precedes faith ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that hope precedes faith. Because
a gloss on Ps. xxxvi. 3, Trust in the Lord, and do good, says:
Hope is the entrance to faith and the beginning 0] salvation.
But salvation is by faith whereby we are justified. There-
fore hope precedes faith.

Ob]. 2. Further, That which is included in a definition
should precede the thing defined and be more known. But
hope is included in the definition of faith (Heb. xi. i) : Faith
is the substance of things to be hoped for. Therefore hope
precedes faith.

Obj. 3. Further, Hope precedes a meritorious act, for the
Apostle says (i Cor. ix. 10) : He that plougheth should plough
in hope . . . to receive fruit. But the act of faith is meri-
torious. Therefore hope precedes faith.

On the contrary, It is written (Matth. i. 2) : Abraham begot
Isaac, i.e. Faith begot hope, according to a gloss.

/ answer that, Absolutely speaking, faith precedes hope.
For the object of hope is a future good, arduous but pos-
sible to obtain. In order, therefore, that we may hope, it
is necessary for the object of hope to be proposed to us as
possible. Now the object of hope is, in one way, eternal
happiness, and, in another way, the Divine assistance, as
explained above (A. 2; A. 6, ad 3): and both of- these are
proposed to us by faith, whereby we come to know that we
are able to obtain eternal life, and that for this pui-pose the

Q. 17. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 208

Divine assistance is ready for us, according to Heb. xi. 6:
He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder
to them that seek Him. Therefore it is evident that faith
precedes hope.

Reply Obj. i. As the same gloss observes further on, hope
is called the entrance to faith, i.e. of the thing beheved,
because by hope we enter in to see what we believe.— Or we
may reply that it is called the entrance to faith, because
thereby man begins to be established and perfected in faith.

Reply Obj. 2. The thing to be hoped for is included in the
definition of hope, because the proper object of faith, is
something not apparent in itself. Hence it was necessary
to express it in a circumlocution by something resulting
from faith.

Reply Obj. 3. Hope does not precede every meritorious
act; but it sufiices for it to accompany or follow it.

Eighth Article,
whether charity precedes hope ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article :—

Objection 1. It seems that charity precedes hope. For

Ambrose says on Luke xvii. 6, // you had faith like to a

grain of mustard-seed, etc.: Charity flows from faith, and hope

from charity. But faith precedes charity. Therefore charity

precedes hope.

Obj. 2. Further, Augustine says {De Civ. Dei xiv.) that
good emotions and affections proceed from love and holy charity.
Now to hope, considered as an act of hope, is a good emotion
of the soul. Therefore it flows from charity.

Obj. 3. Further, The Master says (3 Sent., D. 26) that hope
proceeds from merits, which precede not only the thing
hoped for, but also hope itself, which, in the order of nature,
is preceded by charity. Therefore charity precedes hope.

On the contrary. The Apostle says (i Tim. i. 5) : The end of
the commandment is charity from a pure heart, and a good
conscience, i.e. from hope, according to a gloss. Therefore
hope precedes charity;

209 HOPE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 17. Art. 8

I answer that, Order is twofold. One is the order of
generation and of matter, in respect of which the imperfect
precedes the perfect : the other is the order of perfection
and form, in respect of which the perfect naturally precedes
the imperfect. In respect of the first order hope precedes
charity: and this is clear from the fact that hope and all
movements of the appetite flow from love, as stated above
(I.-IL, Q. XXVII. A. 4: Q. XXVIIL, A. 6, ad 2\ Q. XL.,
A. 7) in the treatise on the passions.

Now there is a perfect, and an imperfect love . Perfect love
is that whereby a man is loved in himself, as when someone
wishes a person some good for his own sake ; thus a man loves
his friend. Imperfect love is that whereby a man loves some-
thing, not for its own sake, but that he may obtain that good
for himself; thus a man loves what he desires. The first love
of God pertains to charity, which adheres to God for His own
sake ; while hope pertains to the second love, since he that
hopes, intends to obtain possession of something for himself.

Hence in the order of generation, hope precedes charity.
For just as a man is led to love God, through fear of being
punished by Him for his sins, as Augustine states in his
commentary on the First canonical epistle of John [Tract, ix.),
so too, hope leads to charity, in as much as a man through
hoping to be rewarded by God, is encouraged to love God
and obey His commandments. On the other hand, in the
order of perfection charity naturally precedes hope, where-
fore, with the advent of charity, hope is made more perfect,
because we hope chiefly in our friends. It is in this sense
that Ambrose states [Ohj. i) that charity flows from hope:
so that this suflices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Ohj. 2. Hope and every movement of the appetite
proceed from some kind of love, whereby the expected good
is loved. But not every kind of hope proceeds from charity,
but only the movement of living hope, viz. that whereby
man hopes to obtain good from God, as from a friend.

Reply Ohj. 3. The Master is speaking of living hope,
which is naturally preceded by charity and the merits caused
by charity,
n. ii. I 14

QUESTION XVIII.

OF THE SUBJECT OF HOPE.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the subject of hope, under which
head there are four points of inquiry: (i) Whether the virtue
of hope is in the will as its subject ? (2) Whether it is
in the blessed ? (3) Whether it is in the damned ?
(4) Whether there is certainty in the hope of a wayfarer ?

First Article.

whether hope is in the will as its subject }

We proceed thus to the First Article: —
Objection i. It seems that hope is not in the will as its
subject. For the object of hope is an arduous good, as
stated above (Q. XVII., A. i: I.-II., Q. XL., A. i). Now
the arduous is the object, not of the will, but of the irascible.
Therefore hope is not in the will but in the irascible.

Ohj. 2. Further, Where one suffices it is superfluous
to add another. Now charity suffices for the perfecting of
the will, which is the most perfect of the virtues. Therefore
hope is not in the will.

Ohj. 3. Further, The one same power cannot exercise two
acts at the same time ; thus the intellect cannot under-
stand many things simultaneously. Now the act of hope
can be at the same time as an act of charity. Since, then,
the act of charity evidently belongs to the will, it follows
that the act of hope does not belong to that power: so that,
therefore, hope is not in the will.

On the contrary, The soul is not apprehensive of God

210

211 THE SUBJECT OF HOPE Q. i8. Art. i

save as regards the mind in which is memory, intellect and
will, as Augustine declares (De Trin. xiv.). Now hope is a
theological virtue having God for its object. Since there-
fore it is neither in the memory, nor in the intellect, which
belong to the cognitive faculty, it follows that it is in the
will as its subject.

/ answer that, As shown above (P. I., 0. LXXXVIL,
A. 2), habits are known by their acts. Now the act of
hope is a movement of the appetitive faculty, since its
object is a good. And, since there is a twofold appetite
in man, namely, the sensitive which is divided into iras-
cible and concupiscible, and the intellective appetite, called
the will, as stated in the First Part (0. LXXXIL, A. 5),
those movements which occur in the lower appetite, are
with passion, while those in the higher appetite are with-
out passion, as shown above (ibid., ad 1: I. -II., O. XXII.,
A. 3, ad 3) . Now the act of the virtue of hope cannot belong
to the sensitive appetite, since the good which is the prin-
cipal object of this virtue, is not a sensible but a Divine
good. Therefore hope resides in the higher appetite, called
the will, and not in the lower appetite, of which the irascible
is a part.

Reply Obj. 1. The object of the irascible is an arduous
sensible : whereas the object of the virtue of hope is an
arduous intelligible, or rather superintelligible.

Reply Obj. 2. Charity perfects the will sufficiently with
regard to one act, which is the act of loving: but another
virtue is required in order to perfect it with regard to its
other act, which is that of hoping.

Reply Obj. 3. The movement of hope and the movement
of charity are mutually related, as was shown above
(O. XVII., A. 8). Hence there is no reason why both
movements should not belong at the same time to the
same power: even as the intellect can understand many
things at the same time if they be related to one another,
as stated in the First Part (Q. LXXXV.. A. 4).

Q. i8. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 212

Second Article,
whether in the blessed there is hope ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article: —

Objection i. It seems that in the blessed there is hope.
For Christ was a perfect comprehensor from the first moment
of his conception. Now He had hope, since, according
to a gloss, the words of Ps. xxx. i. In Thee, 0 Lord, have
I hoped are said in His person. Therefore in the blessed
there can be hope.

Ohj. 2. Further, Even as the obtaining of happiness is
an arduous good, so is its continuation. Now, before they
obtain happiness, men hope to obtain it. Therefore, after
they have obtained it, they can hope to continue in its
possession.

Ohj. 3. Further, By the virtue of hope, a man can hope
for happiness, not only for himself, but also for others,
as stated above (Q. XVIL, A. 3). But the blessed who
are in heaven hope for the happiness of others, else they
would not pray for them. Therefore there can be hope
in them.

Ohj. 4. Further, The happiness of the saints implies
not only glory of the soul but also glory of the body. Now
the souls of the saints in heaven, look yet for the glory
of their bodies (Apoc. vi. 10: Augustine, — Gen. ad. lit. xii.).
Therefore in the blessed there can be hope.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. viii. 24) : What
a man seeth, why doth he hope for ? Now the blessed
enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in
them.

1 answer that, If what gives a thing its species be removed,
the species is destroyed, and that thing cannot remain the
same ; just as, when a natural body loses its form, it does not
remain the same specifically. Now hope takes its species
from its principal object, even as the other virtues do, as
was shown above (0. XVIL, AA. 5, 6 : I.-II., Q. LIV., A. 2) :

213 THE SUBJECT OF HOPE Q. i8. Art. 2

and its principal object is eternal happiness as being possible
to obtain by the assistance of God, as stated above
(Q. XVIL, A. 2).

Since then the arduous possible good cannot be an object
of hope except in so far as it is something future, it follows
that when happiness is no longer future, but present, it
is incompatible with the virtue of hope. Consequently
hope, like faith, is voided in heaven, and neither of them
can be in the blessed.

Reply Ohj. i. Although Christ was a comprehensor
and therefore blessed as to the enjoyment of God, never-
theless He was, at the same time, a wayfarer, as regards
the passibility of nature, to which He was still subject.
Hence it was possible for Him to hope for the glory of
impassibility and immortality, yet not so as to have the
virtue of hope, the principal object of which is not the
glory of the body but the enjoyment of God.

Reply Ohj. 2. The happiness of the saints is called eternal
life, because through enjoying God they become partakers,
as it were, of God's eternity which surpasses all time : so
that the continuation of happiness does not differ in respect
of present, past and future. Hence the blessed do not
hope for the continuation of their happiness (for as regards
this there is no future), but are in actual possession
thereof.

Reply Ohj. 3. So long as the virtue of hope lasts, it is by
the same hope that one hopes for one's o\vn happiness, and
for that of others. But when hope is voided in the blessed,
whereby they hoped for their own happiness, they hope
for the happiness of others indeed, yet not by the virtue
of hope, but rather by the love of charity. Even so, he
that has Divine charity, by that same charity loves his
neighbour, and yet a man may love his neighbour, with-
out having the virtue of charity, but by some other love.

Reply Ohj. 4. Since hope is a theological virtue having
God for its object, its principal object is the glory of the
soul, which consists in the enjoyment of God, and not the
glory of the body. Moreover, although the glory of the

Q. i8. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGlCA '* 2I4

body is something arduous in comparison with human
nature, yet it is not so for one who has the glory of the
soul; both because the glory of the body is a very small
thing as compared with the glory of the soul, and because
one who has the glory of the soul has already the sufficient
cause of the glory of the body.

Third Article,
whether hope is in the damned ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article: —

Objection i. It seems that there is hope in the damned.
For the devil is damned and prince of the damned, according
to Matth. XXV. 41 : Depart . . . you cursed, into everlasting
fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. But
the devil has hope, according to Job xl. 28, Behold his
hope shall Jail him. Therefore it seems that the damned
have hope.

Ohj. 2. Further, Just as faith is either living or dead, so
is hope. But lifeless faith can be in the devils and the
damned, according to James ii. 19 : The devils . . . believe
and tremble. Therefore it seems that lifeless hope also can
be in the damned.

Obj. 3. Further, After death there accrues to man no merit
or demerit that he had not before, according to Eccl. xi. 3,
// the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever
it shall fall, there shall it be. Now many who are damned, in
this life hoped and never despaired. Therefore they will
hope in the future life also.

On the contrary, Hope causes joy, according to Rom. xii. 12,
Rejoicing in hope. Now the damned have no joy, but
sorrow and grief, according to Isa. Ixv. 14, My servants
shall praise for joyfulness of heart, and you shall cry for
sorrow of heart, and shall howl for grief of spirit. Therefore
no hope is in the damned.

/ answer that, Just as it is a condition of happiness that
the will should find rest therein, so is it a condition of

215 THE SUBJECT OF HOPE Q. i8. Art. 3

punishment, that what is inflicted in punishment, should
go against the will. Now that which is not known can
neither be restful nor repugnant to the will: wherefore
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi.) that the angels could not
be perfectly happy in their first state before their con-
firmation, or unhappy before their fall, since they had no
foreknowledge of what would happen to them. For perfect
and true happiness requires that one should be certain of
being happy for ever, else the will would not rest.

In like manner, since the everlastingness of damnation
is a necessary condition of the punishment of the damned,
it would not be truly penal unless it went against the will ;
and this would be impossible if they were ignorant of the
everlastingness of their damnation. Hence it belongs
to the unhappy state of the damned, that they should
know that they cannot by any means escape from dam-
nation and obtain happiness. Wherefore it is written
(Job XV. 22) : He helieveth not that he may return from dark-
ness to light. It is, therefore, evident that they cannot appre-
hend happiness as a possible good, as neither can the blessed
apprehend it as a future good. Consequently there is
no hope either in the blessed or in the damned. On the
other hand, hope can be in wayfarers, whether of this life
or in purgatory, because in either case they apprehend
happiness as a future possible thing.

Reply Obj. i. As Gregory says (Moral, xxxiii.) this
is said of the devil as regards his members, whose hope
will fail utterly: — or, if it be understood of the devil him-
self, it may refer to the hope whereby he expects to van-
(^uish the saints, in which sense we read just before (verse 18) :
He trusteth that the Jordan mav run into his mouth : this
is not, however, the hope of which we are speaking.

Reply Obj. 2. As Augustine sa^^s (Enchirid. viii.), faitJi
is about things, bad or good, past, present or future, one's
own or another's; whereas hope is only about good things,
future and concerning oneself. Hence it is possible for
lifeless faith to be in the damned, but not hope, since the
Divine goods are not for them future possible things, but
far removed from them.

Q. i8. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 216

Reply Ohj. 3. Lack of hope in the damned does not
change their demerit, as neither does the voiding of hope
in the blessed increase their merit : but both these things
are due to the change in their respective states.

Fourth Article.

whether there is certainty in the hope of a

wayfarer ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that there is no certainty in the
hope of a wayfarer. For hope resides in the will. But
certainty pertains not to the will but to the intellect.
Therefore there is no certainty in hope.

Ohj. 2. Further, Hope is based on grace and merits, as
stated above (Q. XVII., A. i). Now it is impossible
in this life to know for certain that we are in a state of
grace, as stated above (I. -II., Q. CXII., A. 5). Therefore
there is no certainty in the hope of a wayfarer.

Ohj. 3. Further, There can be no certainty about that
which may fail. Now many a hopeful wayfarer fails to
obtain happiness. Therefore the wayfarer's hope has no
certainty.

On the contrary, Hope is the certain expectation of future
happiness, as the Master states (3 Sent., D. 26) : and this
may be gathered from 2 Tim. i. 12, / know Whom I have
believed, and I am certain that He is able to keep that which
I have committed to Him.

I answer that, Certainty is found in a thing in two ways,
essentially and by participation. It is found essentially
in the cognitive power; by participation, in whatever is
moved infallibly to its end by the cognitive power. In this
way we say that nature works with certainty, since it is
moved by the Divine intellect wttich moves everything with
certainty to its end. In this way too, the moral virtues
are said to work with greater certainty than art, in as much
as, like a second nature, they are moved to their acts by

217 THE SUBJECT OF HOPE Q. i8. Art. 4

the reason: and thus too, hope tends to its end with
certainty, as though sharing in the certainty of faith which
is in the cognitive faculty.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Ohj. 2. Hope does not trust chiefly in grace already
received, but on God's omnipotence and mercy, whereby
even he that has not grace, can obtain it, so as to come to
eternal life. Now whoever has faith is certain of God's
omnipotence and mercy.

Reply Ohj. 3. That some who have hop^ fail to obtain
happiness, is due to a fault of the free will in placing the
obstacle of sin, but not to any deficiency in God's power
or mercy, in which hope places its trust. Hence this does
not prejudice the certainty of hope.

QUESTION XIX.

OF THE GIFT OF FEAR.

{In Twelve Articles.)

We must now consider the gift of fear, about which there
are twelve points of inquiry: (i) Whether God is to be
feared ? (2) Of the division of fear into fihal, initial, servile
and worldly. (3) Whether worldly fear is always evil ?
(4) Whether servile fear is good ? (5) Whether it is sub-
stantially the same as filial fear ? (6) Whether servile
fear departs when charity comes ? (7) Whether fear is the
beginning of wisdom ? (8) Whether initial fear is sub-
stantially the same as filial fear ? (9) Whether fear is
a gift of the Holy Ghost ? (10) Whether it grows when
charity grows ? (11) Whether it remains in heaven ?
(12) Which of the beatitudes and fruits correspond to it ?

First Article,
whether god can be feared ?

We proceed thus to the First Article: —

Objection i. It seems that God cannot be feared. For the
object of fear is a future evil, as stated above (I. -II., Q. XLL,
AA. 2, 3). But God is free of all evil, since He is good-
ness itself. Therefore God cannot be feared.

Ohj. 2. Further, Fear is opposed to hope. Now we
hope in God. Therefore we cannot fear Him at the same
time.

Ohj. 3. Further, As the Philosopher states (Rhetor, ii.),
we fear those things whence evil comes to us. But evil comes
to us, not from God, but from ourselves, according to

218

219 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 1

Osec xiii. 9: Destruction is thy own, 0 Israel: thy help is . . .
in Me. Therefore God is not to be feared.

On the contrary, It is written (Jer. x. 7) : Who shall not
fear Thee, 0 King of nations? and (Malach. i. 6): // / be
a master, where is My fear ?

I answer that. Just as hope has two objects, one of which
is the future good itself, that one expects to obtain, while
the other is someone's help, through whom one expects
to obtain what one hopes for, so, too, fear may have two
objects, one of which is the very evil which a man shrinks
from, while the other is that from which the evil may come.
Accordingly, in the first way God, Who is goodness itself,
cannot be an object of fear ; but He can be an object of fear
in the second way, in so far as there may come to us some
evil either from Him or in relation to Him.

From Him there comes the evil of punishment, but this is
evil not absolutely but relatively, and, absolutely speaking,
is a good. Because, since a thing is said to be good through
being ordered to an end, while evil implies lack of this
order, that which excludes the order to the last end is alto-
gether evil, and such is the evil of fault. On the other hand
the evil of punishment is indeed an evil, in so far as it is
the privation of some particular good, yet absolutely sjoeak-
ing it is a good, in so far as it is ordained to the last end.

In relation to God the evil of fault can come to us, if
we be separated from Him : and in this way God can and
ought to be feared.

Reply Ohj. i. This objection considers the object of fear
as being the evil which a man shuns.

Reply Ohj. 2. In God, we may consider both His justice,
in respect of which He punishes those who sin, and His
r-iercy, in respect of which He sets us free: in us the con-
sideration of His justice gives rise to fear, but the considera-
tion of His mercy gives rise to hope, so that, accordingly,
(lod is the object of both hope and fear, but under different
aspects.

Reply Ohj. J. Thr evil of fault is not from God as its
author, but from us, in so fr.r as we forsake Ciod: while

Q. 19. Art. 2. THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 220

the evil of punishment is from God as its author, in so
far as it has the character of a good, since it is some-
thing just, through being inflicted on us justly; although
originally this is due to the demerit of sin : thus it is written
(Wis. i. 13, 16) : God made not death . . . hut the wicked
with works and words have called it to them.

Second Article.

whether fear is fittingly divided into filial,
initial, servile and worldly fear ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article: —

Objection i. It seems that fear is unfittingly divided
into filial, initial, servile and worldty fear. For Damascene
says [De Fide Orthod. ii.) that there are six kinds of fear,
viz. laziness, shamefacedness, etc., of which we have treated
above (I. -II., Q. XLI., A. 4), and which are not mentioned
in the division in question. Therefore this division of
fear seems unfitting.

Ohj. 2. Further, Each of these fears is either good or
evil. But there is a fear, viz. natural fear, which is neither
morally good, since it is in the demons, according to
James ii. 19, The devils . . . believe and tremble, nor evil,
since it is in Christ, according to Mark xiv. 33, Jesus began
to fear and be heavy. Therefore the aforesaid division of
fear is insufficient.

Obj. 3. Further, The relation of son to father differs
from that of wife to husband, and this again from that of
servant to master. Now filial fear, which is that of the
son in comparison with his father, is distinct from servile
fear, which is that of the servant in comparison with his
master. Therefore chaste fear, which seems to be that
of the wife in comparison with her husband, ought to be
distinguished from all these other fears.

Obj. 4. Further, Even as servile fear fears punishment,
so do initial and worldly fear. Therefore no distinction
should be made between them.

Obj. 5. Further, Even as concupiscence is about some

221 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 2

good, so is fear about some evil. Now concupiscence
of the eyes, which is the desire for things of this world, is
distinct from concupiscence of the flesh, which is the desire
for one's own. pleasure. Therefore worldly fear, whereby
one fears to lose external goods, is distinct from human
fear, whereby one fears harm to one's own person.

On the contrary stands the authority of the iVIaster
(3 Sent., D. 34).

/ answer that, We are speaking of fear now, in so far as
it makes us turn, so to speak, to God or away from Him.
For, since the object of fear is an evil, sometimes, on
account of the evils he fears, man withdraw^s from God,
and this is called human fear ; while sometimes, on account
of the evils he fears, he turns to God and adheres to Him.
This latter evil is twofold, viz. evil of punishment, and
evil of fault.

Accordingly if a man turn to God and adhere to Him,
through fear of punishment, it will be servile fear; but if
it be on account of fear of committing a fault, it will be
filial fear, for it becomes a child to fear offending its father.
If, however, it be on account of both, it will be initial fear,
which is between both these fears. As to whether it is
possible to fear the evil of fault, the question has been
treated above (I. -II., 0. XLII., A. 3) when we were con-
sidering the passion of fear.

Reply Ohj. i. Damascene divides fear as a passion of
the soul: whereas this division of fear is taken from its
relation to God, as explained above.

Reply Ohj. 2. Moral good consists chiefly in turning to God,
while moral evil consists chiefly in turning away from Him :
wherefore all the fears mentioned above imply either moral
evil or moral good. Now natural fear is presupposed to
moral good and evil, and so it is not numbered among
these kinds of fear.

Reply Ohj. 3. The relation of servant to master is based
on the power which the master exercises over the servant ;
whereas, on the contrary, the relation of a son to his father
or of a wife to her husband is based on the son's a0ection

Q. 19. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 222

towards his father to whom he submits himself, or on the
wife's affection towards her husband to whom she binds
herself in the union of love. Hence filial and chaste fear
amount to the same, because by the love of charity God
becomes our Father, according to Rom. viii. 15, You have
received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry : A bba
(Father): and by this same charity He is called our spouse,
according to 2 Cor. xi. 2, / have espoused you to one husband,
that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ: whereas
servile fear has no connection with these, since it does not
include charity in its definition.

Reply Obj. 4. These three fears regard punishment but
in different ways. For worldly or human fear regards a
punishment which turns man away from God, and which
God's enemies sometimes inflict or threaten : whereas
servile and initial fear regard a punishment whereby men
are drawn to God, and which is inflicted or threatened by
God. Servile fear regards this punishment chiefly, while
initial fear regards it secondarily.

Reply Obj. 5. It amounts to the same whether man
turns away from God through fear of losing his worldly
goods, or through fear of forfeiting the well-being of his
body, since external goods belong to the body. Hence
both these fears are reckoned as one here, although they
fear different evils, even as they correspond to the desire
of different goods. This diversity causes a specific diversity
of sins, all of which alike however lead man away from God.

Third Article,
whether worldly fear is always evil ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article: —

Objection i . It seems that worldly ■ fear is not always
evil. Because regard for men seems to be a kind of human
fear. Now some are blamed for having no regard for man,
for instance, the unjust judge of whom we read (Luke xviii. 2)
that he feared not God, nor regarded man. Therefore it
seems that worldly fear is not always eviL

223 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. art. 3

Obj. 2. Further, Worldly fear seems to have reference
to the punishments inflicted by the secular power. Now
suchhke punishments incite us to good actions, according
to Rom. xiii. 3, Wilt thou not be afraid of the power ? Do
that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same.
Therefore worldly fear is not always evil.

Obj. 3. Further, It seems that what is in us naturally,
is not evil, since our natural gifts are from God. Now
it is natural to man to fear detriment to his body, and loss
of his worldly goods, whereby the present life is supported.
Therefore it seems that worldly fear is not always evil.

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matth. x. 28) : Fear ye
not them that kill the body, thus forbidding worldly fear.
Now nothing but what is evil is forbidden by God. There-
fore worldly fear is evil.

/ answer that, As shown above (I. -II., 0. I., A. 3:
Q. XVIIL, A. i: Q. LIV., A. 2) moral acts and habits take
their name and species from their objects. Now the proper
object of the appetite's movement is the final good: so that,
in consequence, every appetitive movement is both speci-
fied and named from its proper end. For if anyone were
to describe covetousness as love of work because men work
on account of covetousness, this description would be in-
correct, since the covetous man seeks work not as end but
as a means: the end that he seeks is wealth, wherefore
covetousness is rightly described as the desire or the love
of wealth, and this is evil. Accordingly worldly love is,
properly speaking, the love whereby a man trusts in the
world as his end, so that worldly love is always evil. Now
fear is born of love, since man fears the loss of what he loves,
as Augustine states {Qq. 83). Hence worldly fear is that
which arises from worldly love as from an evil root, for
which reason worldly fear is always evil.

Reply Obj. 1. One may have regard for men in two ways.
First, in so far as there is in them something divine, for
instance the good of grace or of virtue, or at least of the
natural image of God: and in this way those are blamed
who have no regard for man; Secondly, one may have

Q. 19. Art. 4. THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 224

regard for men as being in opposition to God, and thus it
is praiseworthy to have no regard for men, according as
we read of EHas or EHseus (Ecclus. xlviii. 13) : In his days
he feared not the prince.

Reply Ohj. 2. When the secular power inflicts punish-
ment in order to withdraw men from sin, it is acting as
God's minister, according to Rom. xiii. 4, For he is God^s
minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth
evil. To fear the secular power in this way is part, not of
worldly fear, but of servile or initial fear.

Reply Ohj. 3. It is natural for man to shrink from detri-
ment to his own body and loss of worldly goods, but to
forsake justice on that account is contrary to natural
reason. Hence the Philosopher says {Ethic, iii.) that there
are certain things, viz. sinful deeds, which no fear should
drive us to do, since to do such things is worse than to
suffer any punishment whatever.

Fourth Article,
whether servile fear is good ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that servile fear is not good. For
if the use of a thing is evil, the thing itself is evil. Now
the use of servile fear is evil, for according to a gloss on
Rom. viii. 15, if a man do anything through fear, although
the deed he good, it is not well done. Therefore servile fear
is not good.

Ohj. 2. Further, No good grows from a sinful root. Now
servile fear grows from a sinful root, because when com-
menting on Job iii. 11, Why did I not die in the womh ?
Gregory says {Moral, iv.) : When a man dreads the punish-
ment which confronts him for his sin and no longer loves the
friendship of God which he has lost, his fear is horn of pride,
not of humility. Therefore servile fear is evil.

Ohj. 3. Further, Just as mercenary love is opposed to
the love of charity, so is servile fear, apparently, opposed
to chaste fear. But mercenary love is always evil. There-
fore servile fear is also,

225 THE GIFT OF FP:AR Q. 19. Art. 4

On the contrary, Nothing evil is from the Holy Ghost.
But servile fear is from the Holy Ghost, since a gloss on
Rom. viii. 15, You have not received the spirit of bondage,
etc., says: It is the one same spirit that bestows two fears,
viz. servile and chaste fear. Therefore servile fear is not
evil.

/ answer that, It is owing to its servility that servile fear
may be evil. For servitude is opposed to freedom. Since,
then, what is free is cause of itself {Met. i.), a slave is one
who does not act as cause of his own action, but as though
moved from without. Now whoever does a thing through
love, does it of himself so to speak, because it is by his own
inclination that he is moved to act : so that it is contrary
to the very notion of servility that one should act from
love. Consequently servile fear as such is contrary to
charity: so that if servility were essential to fear, servile
fear would be evil simply, even as adultery is evil simply,
because that which makes it contrary to charity belongs
to its very species.

This servility, however, does not belong to the species of
servile fear, even as neither doe,s lifelessness to the species
of lifeless faith. For the species of a moral habit or act is
taken from the object. Now the object of servile fear
is punishment, and it is by accident that, either the good to
which the punishment is contrary, is loved as the last end,
and that consequently the punishment is feared as the
greatest evil, which is the case with one who is devoid of
charity, or that the punishment is. directed to God as its
end, and that, consequently, it is not feared as the greatest
evil, which is the case with one who has charity. For
the species of a habit is not destroyed through its object
or end being directed to a further end. Consequently
servile fear is substantially good, but its servility is evil.

Reply Obj. 1. This saying of Augustine is to be apphed

to a man who does something through servile fear as such,

so that he loves not justice, and fears nothing but the

punishment .

Reply Obj. 2. Servile fear as to its substance is not bora
II. ii. I 15

Q. 19. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 226

of pride, but its servility is, inasmuch as man is unwilling,
by love, to subject his affections to the yoke of justice.

Reply Ohj. 3. Mercenary love is that whereby God is
loved for the sake of worldly goods, and this is, of itself,
contrary to charity, so that mercenary love is always evil.
But servile fear, as to its substance, implies merely fear
of punishment, whether or not this be feared as the princi-
pal evil.

Fifth Article.

whether servile fear is substantially the
same as filial fear ?

We pro eed thus to the Fifth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that servile fear is substantially
the same as filial fear. For filial fear is to servile fear the
same apparently as living faith is to lifeless faith, since the
one is accompanied by mortal sin and the other not. Now
living faith and lifeless faith are substantially the same.
Therefore servile and filial fear are substantially the same.

Ohj. 2. Further, Habits are diversified by their objects.
Now the same thing is the object of servile and of filial
fear, since they both fear God. Therefore servile and filial
fear are substantially the same.

Ohj. 3. Further, Just as man hopes to enjoy God and
to obtain favours from Him, so does he fear to be separated
from God and to be punished by Him. Now it is the same
hope whereby we hope to enjoy God, and to receive other
favours from Him, as stated above (Q. XVIL, A. 2, ad 2).
Therefore filial fear, whereby we fear separation from
God, is the same as servile fear whereby we fear His punish-
ments.

On the contrary, Augustine, in his commentary on the
First Canonical epistle of John {Tract, ix.), says that there
are two fears, one servile, another filial or chaste fear.

/ answer that, The proper object of fear is evil. And
since acts and habits are diversified by their objects, as
shown above (I.-H., Q. LIV., A. 2), it follows of necessity

227 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 6

that different kinds of fear correspond to different kinds
of evil.

Now the evil of punishment, from which servile fear
shrinks, differs specifically from evil of fault, which filial
fear shuns, as shown above (A. 2). Hence it is evident
that servile and filial fear are not the same substantially
but differ specifically.

Reply Ohj. i. Living and lifeless faith differ, not as regards
the object, since each of them believes God and believes in a
God, but in respect of something extrinsic, viz. the presence
or absence of charity, and so they do not differ substantially.
On the other hand, servile and filial fear differ as to their
objects; and hence the comparison fails.

Reply Ohj. 2. Servile fear and filial fear do not regard
God in the same light. For servile fear looks upon God
as the cause of the infliction of punishment, whereas filial
fear looks upon Him, not as the active cause of guilt, but
rather as the term wherefrom it shrinks to be sepa-
rated by guilt. Consequently the identity of object, viz.
God, does not prove a specific identity of fear, since also
natural movements differ specifically according to their
different relationships to some one term, for movement
from whiteness is not specifically the same as movement
towards whiteness.

Reply Obj. 3. Hope looks upon God as the principle
not only of the enjoyment of God, but also of any other
favour whatever. This cannot be said of fear; and so there
is no comparison.

Sixth Article,
whether servile fear remains with charity ?

Wc proceed thus to the Sixth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that servile fear does not remain
with charity. For Augustine says in his commentary on
the First Canonical epistle of John {Tract, ix.) that when
charity takes up its abode, it drives away fear which had pre-
pared a place for it.

g. 19. Art. 6 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 228

Ohj. 2. Further, The chanty of God is poured forth in our
hearts, by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us (Rom. v. 5).
Now where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor.
iii. 17). Since then freedom excludes servitude, it seems
that servile fear is driven away when charity comes.

Obj. 3. Further, Servile fear is caused by self-love, in
so far as punishment diminishes one's own good. Now
love of (jod drives away self-love, for it makes us despise
ourselves: thus Augustine testifies {De Civ. Dei xiv.) that
the love of God unto the contempt of self builds up the city of
God. Therefore it seems that servile fear is driven out
when charity comes.

On the contrary, Servile fear is a gift of the Holy Ghost,
as stated above (A. 4). Now the gifts of the Holy Ghost
are not forfeited through the advent of charity, whereby
the Holy Ghost dwells in us. Therefore servile fear is not
driven out when charity comes.

/ answer that, Servile fear proceeds from self-love, because
it is fear of punishment which is detrimental to one's own
good. Hence the fear of punishment is consistent with
charity, in the same way as self-love is : because it comes
to the same that a man love his own good and that he fear
to be deprived of it.

Now self-love may stand in a threefold relationship to
charity. In one way it is contrary to charity, when a
man places his end in the love of his own good. In another
way it is included in charity, when a man loves himself
for the sake of God and in God. In a third way, it is indeed
distinct from charity, but is not contrary thereto, as when
a man loves himself from the point of view of his own good,
yet not so as to place his end in this his own good : even as
one may have another special love for one's neighbour,
besides the love of charity which is founded on God, when
we love him by reason of usefulness, consanguinity, or some
other human consideration, which, however, is referable
to charity.

Accordingly fear of punishment is, in one way, included
in charity, because separation from God is a punishment,

229 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 7

which charity shuns exceedingly; so that this belongs to
chaste fear. In another way, it is contrary to charity,
when a man shrinks from the punishment that is opposed
to his natural good, as being the principal evil in opposition
to the good which he loves as an end ; and in this way fear
of punishment is not consistent with charity. In another
way fear of punishment is indeed substantially distinct
from chaste fear, when, to wit, a man fears a penal evil,
not because it separates him from God, but because it is
hurtful to his own good, and yet he does not place his end
in this good, so that neither does he dread this evil as being
the principal evil. Such fear of punishment is consistent
with charity; but it is not called servile, except when punish-
ment is dreaded as a principal evil, as explained above
(AA. 2, 4). Hence fear considered as servile, does not
remain with charity, but the substance of servile fear can
remain with charity, even as self-love can remain with
charity.

Reply Obj. 1. Augustine is speaking of fear, considered
as servile : and such is the sense of the two other objections.

Seventh Article,
whether fear is the beginning of wisdom ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that fear is not the beginning of
wisdom. For the beginning of a thing is a part thereof.
But fear is not a part of wisdom, since fear is seated in
the appetitive faculty, while wisdom is in the intellect.
Therefore it seems that fear is not the beginning of
wisdom.

Obj. 2. Further, Nothing is the beginning of itself. Noxv
fear of the Lord, that is ivisdom, according to Job xxviii. 28.
Therefore it seems that fear of God is not the beginning
of wisdom.

Obj. 3. Further, Nothing is prior to the beginning. But
sonietliing is prior to fear, since faith precedes fear. There-
fore it seems that fear is not the beginning of wisdom.

g. 19. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 230

On the contrary, It is written in the Psalm (ex. 10) : The
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

I answer that, A thing may be called the beginning of
wisdom in two ways: in one way, because it is the begin-
ning of wisdom itself as to its essence ; in another way, as
to its effect. Thus the beginning of an art as to its essence
consists in the principles from which that art proceeds,
while the beginning of an art as to its effect is that where-
from it begins to operate : for instance we might say that
the beginning of the art of building is the foundation,
because that is where the builder begins his work.

Now, since wisdom is the knowledge of Divine things,
as we shall state further on (Q. XLV., A. i), it is con-
sidered by us in one way, and in another way by philoso-
phers. For, seeing that our life is ordained to the enjoy-
ment of God, and is directed thereto according to a par-
ticipation of the Divine Nature, conferred on us through
grace, wisdom, as we look at it, is considered not only as
being cognizant of God, as it is with the philosophers, but
also as directing human conduct; since this is directed
not only by the human law, but also by the Divine law,
as Augustine shows [De Trin. xii.). Accordingly the
beginning of wisdom as to its essence consists in the
first principles of wisdom, i.e. the articles of faith, and
in this sense faith is said to be the beginning of wisdom.
But as regards the effect, the beginning of wisdom is the
point where wisdom begins to work, and in this way fear
is the beginning of wisdom, yet servile fear in one way,
and filial fear, in another. For servile fear is like a prin-
ciple disposing a man to wisdom from without, in so far
as he refrains from sin through fear of punishment, and
is thus fashioned for the effect of wisdom, according to
Ecclus. i. 27, The fear of the Lord driveth. out sin. On the
other hand, chaste or filial fear is the beginning of wisdom,
as being the first effect of wisdom. For since the regu-
lation of human conduct by the Divine law belongs to
wisdom, in order to make a beginning, man must first of all
fear God and submit himself to Him: for the result will
be that in all things he will be ruled by God.

231 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 8

Reply Obj. i. This argument proves that fear is not the
beginning of wisdom as to the essence of wisdom.

Reply Obj. 2. The fear of God is compared to a man's
whole life that is ruled by God's wisdom, as the root to
the tree: hence it is written (Ecclus. i. 25): The root of
wisdom is to fear the Lord, for (Vulg., — and) the branches
thereof are longlived. Consequently, as the root is said to
be virtually the tree, so the fear of God is said to be wisdom.

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above, faith is .the beginning
of wisdom in one way, and fear, in another. Hence it is
written (Ecclus. xxv. 16) : The fear of God is the beginning
of love : and the beginning of faith is to be fast joined to it.

Eighth Article.

whether initial fear differs substantially
from filial fear ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that initial fear differs substan-
tially from filial fear. For filial fear is caused by love.
Now initial fear is the beginning of love, according to
Ecclus. xxv. 16, The fear of God is the beginning of love.
Therefore initial fear is distinct from filial fear.

Obj. 2. Further, Initial fear dreads punishment, which
is the object of servile fear, so that initial and servile fear
would seem to be the same. But servile fear is distinct
from filial fear. Therefore initial fear also is substantially
distinct from filial fear.

Obj. 3. Further, A mean differs in the same ratio from
both the extremes. Now initial fear is the mean between
servile and filial fear. Therefore it differs from both filial
and servile fear.

On the contrary, Perfect and imperfect do not diversify
the substance of a thing. Now initial and filial fear differ
in respect of perfection and imperfection of charity, as
Augustine states in his commentary on the First Canonical
Epistle of John {Tract, ix.). Therefore initial fear does
not differ substantially from filial fear.

Q. 19. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THKOLO(iICA " 232

/ answer that, Initial fear is so called because it is a begin-
ning (initium). Since, however, both servile and filial
fear are, in some way, the beginning of wisdom, each may
be called in some way, initial.

It is not in this sense, however, that we are to understand
initial fear in so far as it is distinct from servile and filial
fear, but in the sense according to which it belongs to the
state of beginners, in whom there is a beginning of filial
fear resulting from a beginning of charity, although they
do not possess the perfection of filial fear, because they
have not yet attained to the perfection of charity.
Consequently initial fear stands in the same relation to
filial fear as imperfect to perfect charity. Now perfect
and imperfect charity differ, not as to essence but as to
state. Therefore we must conclude that initial fear, as
we understand it here, does not differ essentially from
filial fear.

Reply Ohj. i. The fear which is a begmning of love is
servile fear, which is the herald of charity, just as the bristle
introduces the thread, as Augustine states {Tract, ix. in
Ep. i. Joan.). Or else, if it be referred to initial fear, this
is said to be the beginning of love, not absolutely, but
relatively to the state of perfect charity.

Reply Ohj. 2. Initial fear does not dread punishment
as its proper object, but as having something of servile
fear connected with it: for this servile fear, as to its sub-
stance, remains indeed, with charity, its servility being
cast aside; whereas its act remains with imperfect charity
in the man who is moved to perform good actions not only
through love of justice, but also through fear of punish-
ment, though this same act ceases in the man who has
perfect charity, which casteth out fear, according to i John
iv. 18.

Reply Ohj. 3. Initial fear is a mean between servile and
filial fear, not as between two things of the same genus,
but as the imperfect is a mean between a perfect being and
a non-being, as stated in Met. \\., for it is the same sub-
stantially as the perfect being, while it differs altogether
from non-being.

233 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 9

Ninth Article,
whether fear is a gift of the holy ghost ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that fear is not a gift of the Holy
(ihost. For no gift of the Holy Ghost is opposed to a
virtue, which is also from the Holy (ihost; else the Holy
Ghost would be in opposition to Himself. Now fear is
opposed to hope, which is a virtue. Therefore fear is not
a gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ohj. 2. Further, It is proper to a theological virtue to
have God for its object. But fear has (iod for its object,
in so far as (iod is feared. Therefore fear is not a gift,
but a theological virtue.

Obj. 3. Further, Fear arises from love. But love is
reckoned a theological virtue. Therefore fear also is a theo-
logical virtue, being connected with the same matter, as
it were.

Obj. 4. Further, (iregory says {Moral, ii.) that fear is
bestowed as a remedy against pride. But the virtue of
humility is opposed to pride. Therefore again, fear is a
kind of virtue.

Obj. 5. Further, The gifts are more perfect than the
virtues, since they are bestowed in support of the virtues
as Gregory says [Moral, ii.). Now hope is more perfect
than fear, since hope regards good, while fear regards evil.
Since, then, hope is a virtue, it should not be said that
fear is a gift.

On the contrary, The fear of the Lord is numbered among
the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost (Isa. xi. 3).

/ answer that, Fear is of several kinds, as stated above
(A. 2). Now^ it is not human fear, according to Augustine
{De Gratia et Lib. Arb. wiii.), that is a gift of God, — for it
was by this fear that Peter denied Christ, — but that fear of
which it was said (Matth. x. 2(S): Fear Him that can destroy
both soul and body into hell.

Again ser\'ile fear is not to be reckoned among the seven

Q. 19. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 234

gifts of the Holy Ghost, though it is from Him, because,
according to Augustine [De Nat. et Grat. Ivii.) it is compatible
with the will to sin : whereas the gifts of the Holy Ghost are
incompatible with the will to sin, as they are inseparable
from charity, as stated above (I.-H., Q. LXVUL, A. 5).

It follows, therefore, that the fear of God, which is num-
bered among the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, is filial
or chaste fear. For it was stated above (I. -II., Q. LXVIIL,
AA. I, 3) that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are certain
habitual perfections of the soul's powers, whereby these
are rendered amenable to the motion of the Holy Ghost,
just as, by the moral virtues, the appetitive powers are
rendered amenable to the motion of reason. Now for a
thing to be amenable to the motion of a certain mover,
the first condition required is that it be a non-resistant
subject of that mover, because resistance of the movable
subject to the mover hinders the movement. This is
what filial or chaste fear does, since thereby we revere
God and avoid separating ourselves from Him. Hence,
according to Augustine {De Serm. Dom. in monte i.) filial
fear holds the first place, as it were, among the gifts of
the Holy Ghost, in the ascending order, and the last place,
in the descending order.

Reply Obj. i. Filial fear is not opposed to the virtue
of hope: since thereby we fear, not that we may fail of
what we hope to obtain by God's help, but lest we with-
draw ourselves from this help. Wherefore filial fear and
hope cling together, and perfect one another.

Reply Obj. 2. The proper and principal object of fear is
the evil shunned, and in this way, as stated above (A. i),
God cannot be an object of fear. Yet He is, in this way,
the object of hope and the other theological virtues, since,
by the virtue of hope, we trust in God's help, not only to
obtain any other goods, but, chiefly, to obtain God Him-
self, as the principal good. The same evidently applies
to the other theological virtues.

Reply Obj. 3. From the fact that love is the origin of
fear, it does not follow that the fear of God is not a distinct

235 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19- Art. 10

habit from charity, which is the love of God, since love
is the origin of all the emotions, and yet we are perfected
by different habits in respect of different emotions. Yet
love is more of a virtue than fear is, because love regards
good, to which virtue is principally directed by reason of
its own nature, as was shown above (I. -II., Q. LV., AA. 3, 4) ;
for which reason hope also is reckoned as a virtue ; whereas
fear principally regards evil, the avoidance of which it
denotes, wherefore it is something less than a theological
virtue.

Reply Ohj. 4. According to Ecclus. x. 14, the beginning
of the pride of man is to fall off from God, that is to refuse
submission to God, and this is opposed to filial fear, which
reveres God. Thus fear cuts off the source of pride, for
which reason it is bestowed as a remedy against pride.
Yet it does not follow that it is the same as the virtue of
humility, but that it is its origin. For the gifts of the
Holy Ghost are the origin of the intellectual and moral
virtues, as stated above (I. -II., Q. LXVIIL, A. 4), while
the theological virtues are the origin of the gifts, as stated
above (I. -II., Q. LXIX., A. 4, ad 3).

This suffices for the Reply to the Fifth Objection.

Tenth Article,
whether fear decreases when charity increases ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that fear decreases when charity
increases. For Augustine says in his commentary on the
First Canonical Epistle of John (Tract, ix.): The more
charity increases, the more fear decreases.

Obj. 2. Further, Fear decreases when hope increases.
But charity increases when hope increases, as stated above
(Q. XVII., A. 8). Therefore fear decreases when charity
increases.

Obj. 3. Further, Love implies union, whereas fear implies
separation. Now separation decreases when union increases.
Therefore fear decreases when the love of charity increases.

Q. TQ. Art. io THE " SUMMA THEOLOC.TCA " 236

On the contrary, Augustine says [Qq. 83) that the fear of
God not only begins hut also perfects wisdom, whereby we love
God above all things, and our neighbour as ourselves.

I answer that. Fear is twofold, as stated above (AA. 2, 4) ;
one is filial fear, whereby a son fears to offend his father
or to be separated from him; the other is servile fear,
whereby one fears punishment.

Now filial fear must needs increase when charity increases,
even as an effect increases with the increase of its cause,
h^or the more one loves a man, the more one fears to offend
him and to be separated from him.

On the other hand servile fear, as regards its servility,
is entirely cast out when charity comes, although the fear
of punishment remains as to its substance, as stated above
(A. 6). This fear decreases as charity increases, chiefly
as regards its act, since the more a man loves God, the
less he fears punishment; first, because he thinks less of
his own good, to which punishment is opposed; secondly,
because, the faster he clings, the more confident he is of
the reward, and, consequently, the less fearful of punish-
ment.

Reply Obj. i. Augustine speaks there of the fear of
punishment.

Reply Obj. 2. It is fear of punishment that decreases
when hope increases ; but with the increase of the latter filial
fear increases, because the more certainly a man expects
to obtain a good by another's help, the more he fears to
offend him or to be separated from him.

Reply Obj. 3. Filial fear does not imply separation from
God, but submission to Him, and shuns separation from
that submission. Yet, in a way, it implies separation, in
the point of not presuming to equal oneself to Him, and
of submitting to Him, which separation is to be observed
even in charity, in so far as a man loves God more than
himself and more than aught else. Hence the increase of
the love of charity implies not a decrease but an increase
in the reverence of fear.

237 . 'I'^i^ ^^Il^^'l^ ^^' FKAK o. J 9. Art. 11

Eleventh Article,
whethek fear remains in heaven ?

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that fear does not remain in heaven.
For it is written (Prov. i. 33): He . . . shall enjoy abund-
ance, without fear of evils, which is to be understood as
referring to those who already enjoy wisdom in everlasting
happiness. Now every fear is about some evil, since evil
is the object of fear, as stated above (AA. 2, 5: I. -II.,
Q. XLII., A. i). Therefore there will be no fear in heaven.

Obj. 2. Further, In heaven men will be conformed with
(jod, according to i John iii. 2, When He shall appear, we
shall be like to Him. But God fears nothing. Therefore,
in heaven, men will have no fear.

Obj. 3. Further, Hope is more perfect than fear, since
hope regards good, and fear, evil. Now hope will not be
in heaven. Therefore neither will there be fear in heaven.

On the contrary. It is written (Ps. xviii. 10) : The fear of
the Lord is holy, enduring for ever and ever.

I answer that, Servile fear, or fear of punishment, will by
no means be in heaven, since such a fear is excluded by the
security which is essential to everlasting happiness, as stated
above (I.-II., O. V., A. 4).

But with regard to filial fear, as it increases with the
increase of charity, so is it perfected when charity is made
perfect; hence, in heaven, it will not have quite the same
act as it has now.

In order to make this clear, we must obserxe that the
proper object of fear is a possible evil, just as the proper
object of hope is a possible good: and since the movement
of fear is like one of avoidance, fear implies avoidance of
a possible arduous evil, for little evils inspire no fear. Now
as a thing's good consists in its staying in its own order,
so a thing's evil consists in its forsaking its order. Again,
the order of a rational creature is that it should be under
Ciod and abo\"e other creatures. Hence, just as it is an

Q. 19 Art. 11 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 238

evil for a rational creature to submit, by love, to a lower
creature, so too is it an evil for it, if it submit not to God,
but presumptuously revolt against Him or contemn Him.
Now this evil is possible to a rational creature considered as
to its nature, on account of the natural flexibility of the
free-will; whereas in the blessed, it becomes impossible, by
reason of the perfection of glory. Therefore the avoidance
of this evil that consists in non-subjection to God, and is
possible to nature, but impossible in the state of bliss, will be
in heaven ; while in this life there is avoidance of this evil as
of something altogether possible. Hence Gregory, expound-
ing the words of Job (xxvi. 11), The pillars of heaven
tremble, and dread at His heck, says [Moral, xvii.) : The
heavenly powers that gaze on Him without ceasing, tremble
while contemplating : but their awe, lest it should he of a
penal nature, is one not of fear but of wonder, because,
to wit, they wonder at God's supereminence and incom-
prehensibility. Augustine also [De Civ. Dei xiv.) in this
sense, admits fear in heaven, although he leaves the
question doubtful. //, he says, this chaste fear that endureth
for ever and ever is to he in the future life, it will not he a fear
that is afraid of an evil which might possibly occur, but a fear
that holds fast to a good which we cannot lose. For when we
love the good which we have acquired, with an unchangeable
love, without doubt, if it is allowable to say so, our fear is
sure of avoiding evil. Because chaste fear denotes a will
that cannot consent to sin, and whereby we avoid sin without
trembling lest, in our weakness, we fall, and possess ourselves
in the tranquillity born of charity. Else, if no kind of fear
is possible there, perhaps fear is said to endure for ever and
ever, because that which fear will lead us to, will he everlasting.

Reply Ohj. i. The passage quoted excludes from the
blessed, the fear that denotes solicitude, and anxiety about
evil, but not the fear which is accompanied by security.

Reply Ohj. 2. As Dionysius says [Div. Nom. ix.), the
same things are both like and unlike God. They are like by
reason of a variable imitation of the Inimitable, — that is,
because, so far as they can, they imitate God, Who cannot

239 'l^HE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 12

be imitated perfectly, — they are unlike because they are the
effects of a Cause of Whom they fall short infinitely and
immeasurably. Hence, if there be no fear in God (since
there is none above Him to whom He may be subject) it
does not follow that there is none in the blessed, whose
happiness consists in perfect subjection to God.

Reply Obj. 3. Hope implies a certain defect, namely the
futurity of happiness, which ceases when happiness is
present : whereas fear implies a natural defect in a creature,
in so far as it is infinitely distant from God, and this defect
will remain even in heaven. Hence fear will not be cast
out altogether.

Twelfth Article.

whether poverty of spirit is the beatitude
corresponding to the gift of fear ?

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that poverty of spirit is not the
beatitude corresponding to the gift of fear. For fear is
the beginning of the spiritual life, as explained above
(A. 7): whereas poverty belongs to the perfection of the
spiritual life, according to Matth. (xix. 21), // thou wilt be
perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor. Therefore
poverty of spirit does not correspond to the gift of fear.

Obj. 2. Further, It is written (Ps. cxviii. 120): Pierce
Thou my flesh with Thy fear, whence it seems to follow that
it belongs to fear to restrain the flesh. But the curbing of
the flesh seems to belong rather to the beatitude of mourning.
Therefore the beatitude of mourning corresponds to the
gift of fear, rather than the beatitude of poverty.

Obj. 3. Further, The gift of fear corresponds to the virtue
of hope, as stated above (A. 9, ad i). Now the last beati-
tude which is. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called the children of God, seems above all to correspond to
hope, because according to' Rom. v. 2,wc . . . glory in the
hope of the glory of the sons of God. Therefore that beatitude
corresponds to the gift of fear, rather than poverty of spirit.

Obj. 4. Further, It was stated above (I.-II., Q. LXX.

Q. 19. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLCXilCA " 240

A. 2) that the fruits correspond to the beatitudes. Now
none of the fruits correspond to the gift of fear. Neither,
therefore, does any of the beatitudes.

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Serm. Dom. in
monte i.) : The fear of the Lord is befitting the humble of whom
it is said : Blessed are the poor in spirit.

I answer that, Poverty of spirit properly corresponds to
fear. Because, since it belongs to filial fear to show rever-
ence and submission to God, whatever results from this
submission belongs to the gift of fear. Now from the very
fact that a man submits to God, it follovv^s that he ceases to
seek greatness either in himself or in another but seeks it only
in God. For that would be inconsistent with perfect
subjection to God, wherefore it is written (Ps. xix. 8):
Some trust in chariots and some in horses ; but we will call
upon the name of . . . our God. It follows that if a man
fear God perfectly, he does not, by pride, seek greatness
either in himself or in external goods, viz. honours and
riches. In either case this proceeds from poverty of
spirit, in so far as the latter denotes either the voiding of a
puffed up and proud spirit, according to Augustine's inter-
pretation [loc. cit.), or the renunciation of worldly goods
which is done in spirit, i.e. by one's own will, through the
instigation of the Holy Spirit, according to the expounding
of Ambrose on Luke vi. 20 and Jerome on Matth. y. 3.

Reply Obj. 1. Since a beatitude is an act of perfect virtue,
all the beatitudes belong to the perfection of spiritual life.
And this perfection seems to require that w^hoever would
strive to obtain a perfect share of spiritual goods, needs to
begin by despising earthly goods, wherefore fear holds the
first place among the gifts. Perfection, however, does not
consist in the renunciation itself of temporal goods; since
this is the way to perfection: whereas filial fear, to which
the beatitude of poverty corresponds, is consistent with
the perfection of wisdom, as stated above (AA. 7, 10).

Reply Obj. 2. The undue exaltation of man either in
himself or in another is more directly opposed to that
submission to God which is the result of filial fear, than is

241 THE GIFT OF FEAR Q. 19. Art. 12

external pleasure. Yet this is, in consequence, opposed to
fear, since whoever fears God and is subject to Him, takes
no delight in things other than God. Nevertheless, pleasure
is not concerned, as exaltation is, with the arduous char-
acter of a thing which fear regards: and so the beatitude
of poverty corresponds to fear directly, and the beatitude
of mourning, consequently.

Reply Ohj. 3. Hope denotes a movement by way of a
relation of tendency to a term, whereas fear implies move-
ment by way of a relation of withdrawal from a term:
wherefore the last beatitude which is the term of spiritual
perfection, fittingly corresponds to hope, by way of ultimate
object; while the first beatitude, which implies withdrawal
from external things which hinder submission to God,
fittingly corresponds to fear.

Reply Ohj. 4. As regards the fruits, it seems that those
things correspond to the gift of fear, which pertain to the
moderate use of temporal things or to abstinence there-
from; such are modesty, continency and chastity.

ir. 11. I

16

gUESTlON XX.

OF DESPAIR.

[In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the contrary vices; (i) Despair;
(2) Presumption. Under the first head there are four
points of inquiry : (i) Whether despair is a sin ? (2) Whether
it can be without unbelief ? (3) Whether it is the greatest
of sins ? (4) Whether it arises from sloth ?

First Article,
whether despair is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that despair is not a sin. For
every sin includes conversion to a mutable good, together
with aversion from the immutable good, as Augustine
states [De Lib. Arh. i.). But despair includes no con-
version to a mutable good. Therefore it is not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, That which grows from a good root,
seems to be no sin, because a good tree cannot bring forth
evil fruit (Matth. vii. 18). Now despair seems to grow from
a good root, viz. fear of God, or from horror at the greatness
of one's own sins. Therefore despair is not a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, If despair were a sin, it would be a sin
also for the damned to despair. But this is not imputed
to them as their fault but as part of their damnation.
Therefore neither is it imputed to wayfarers as their fault,
so that it is not a sin.

On the contrary, That which leads men to sin, seems not

J42

243 DESPAIR Q. 20. Art. i

only to be a sin itself, but a source of sins. Now such is
despair, for the Apostle says of certain men (Eph. iv. 19):
Who, despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness,
unto the working of all uncleanness and (Vulg., — unto)
covetousness. Therefore despair is not only a sin but also
the origin of other sins.

/ answer that, According to the Philosopher {Ethic, vi.)
affirmation and negation in the intellect correspond to
search and avoidance in the appetite ; while truth and false-
hood in the intellect correspond to good and evil in the
appetite. Consequently every appetitive movement which
is conformed to a true intellect, is good in itself, while every
appetitive movement which is conformed to a false intellect
is evil in itself and sinful. Now the true opinion of the
intellect about God is that from Him comes salvation to
mankind, and pardon to sinners, according to Ezech. xviii.
23, / desire not the death of the sinner, hut that he should he
converted, and live .'* while it is a false opinion that He
refuses pardon to the repentant sinner, or that He does not
turn sinners to Himself by sanctifying grace. Therefore, just
as the movement of hope, which is in conformity with the
true opinion, is praiseworthy and virtuous, so the contrary
movement of despair, which is in conformity with the false
opinion about God, is vicious and sinful.

Reply Ohj. i. In every mortal sin there is, in some way,
aversion from the immutable good, and conversion to a
mutable good, but not always in the same way. Because,
since the theological virtues have God for their object, the
sins which are contrary to them, such as hatred of God,
despair and unbelief, consist principally in aversion from
the immutable good; but, consequently, they imply con-
version to a mutable good, in so far as the soul that is a
deserter from (iod, must necessarily turn to other things.
Other sins, however, consist principally in conversion to a
mutable good, and, consequently, in aversion from the
immutable good: because the fornicator intends, not to

* Vulg., — Is it My will that a sinner should die . . . and not
Hint he should be converted and live ?

g. 20. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 244

depart from God, but to enjoy carnal pleasure, the result
of which is that he departs from God.

Reply Obj. 2. A thing may grow from a virtuous root
in two ways, first directly and on the part of the virtue
itself; even as an act proceeds from a habit: and in this
way no sin can grow from a virtuous root, for in this sense
Augustine declared {De Lib. Arb. ii.) that no man makes
evil use of virtue. Secondly, a thing proceeds from a virtue
indirectly, or is occasioned by a virtue, and in this way
nothing hinders a sin proceeding from a virtue: thus some-
times men pride themselves of their virtues, according to
Augustine {Ep. ccxxi.): Pride lies in wait for good works that
they may die. In this way fear of God or horror of one's
own sins may lead to despair, in so far as man makes evil
use of those good things, by allowing them to be an occasion
of despair.

Reply Obj. 3. The damned are outside the pale of hope
on account of the impossibility of returning to happiness :
hence it is not imputed to them that they hope not, but it
is a part of their damnation. Even so, it would be no sin
for a wayfarer to despair of obtaining that which he had
no natural capacity for obtaining, or which was not due to
be obtained by him; for instance, if a physician were to
despair of healing some sick man, or if anyone were to
despair of ever becoming rich.

Second Article,
whether there can be despair without unbelief ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that there can be no despair without
unbelief. For the certainty of hope is derived from faith;
and so long as the cause remains the effect is not done away.
Therefore a man cannot lose the certainty of hope, by
despairing, unless his faith be removed.

Obj. 2. Further, To prefer one's own guilt to God's
mercy and goodness, is to deny the infinity of God's goodness
and mercy, and so, savours of unbelief. But whoever

245 DESPAIR Q. 20. Art. 2

despairs, prefers his own guilt to the Divine mercy and
goodness, according to Gen. iv. 13: My iniquity is greater
than that I may deserve pardon. Therefore whoever despairs,
is an unbeliever.

Ohj. 3. Further, Whoever falls into a condemned heresy,
is an unbeliever. But he that despairs seems to fall into
a condemned heresy, viz. that of the Novatians, who say
that there is no pardon for sins after Baptism. Therefore
it seems that whoever despairs, is an unbeliever.

On the contrary, If we remove that which follows, that
which precedes remains. But hope follows faith, as stated
above (Q. XVII., A. 7). Therefore when hope is removed,
faith can remain; so that, not everyone who despairs, is
an unbeliever.

/ answer that, Unbelief pertains to the intellect, but
despair, to the appetite: and the intellect is about universals,
while the appetite is moved in connection with particulars,
since the appetitive movement is from the soul towards
things, which, in themselves, are particular. Now it may
happen that a man, while having a right opinion in the
universal, is not rightly disposed as to his appetitive move-
ment, his estimate being corrupted in a particular matter,
because, in order to pass from the universal opinion to the
appetite for a particular thing, it is necessary to have
a particular estimate {De Anima iii.), just as it is impossible
to infer a particular conclusion from an universal pro-
position, except through the holding of a particular
proposition. Hence it is that a man, while having right
faith, in the universal, fails in an appetitive movement,
in regard to some particular, his particular estimate being
corrupted by a habit or a passion, just as the fornicator,
by choosing fornication as a good for himself at this particu-
lar moment, has a corrupt estimate in a particular matter,
although he retains the true universal estimate according
to faith, viz. that fornication is a mortal sin. In the same
way, a man, while retaining in the universal, the true
estimate of faith, viz. that there is in the Church the power
of forgiving sins, may suffer a movement of despair, to wit.

Q. 20. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 246

that for him, being in such a state, there is no hope of
pardon, his estimate being corrupted in a particular matter.
In this way there can be despair, just as there can be other
mortal sins, without unbelief.

Reply Obj. i. The effect is done away, not only when the
first cause is removed, but also when the secondary cause
is removed. Hence the movement of hope can be done
away, not only by the removal of the universal estimate
of faith, which is, so to say, the first cause of the certainty
of hope, but also by the removal of the particular estimate,
which is the secondary cause, as it were.

Reply Obj. 2. If anyone were to judge, in universal, that
God's mercy is not infinite, he would be an unbeliever.
But he who despairs judges not thus, but that, for him
in that state, on account of some particular disposition,
there is no hope of the Divine mercy.

The same answer applies to the Th'rd Objection, since
the Novatians denied, in universal, that there is remission
of sins in the Church.

Third Article,
whether despair is the greatest of sins ?

We proceed thus to the Third A rticle :—

Objection i. It seems that despair is not the greatest of
sins. For there can be despair without unbelief, as stated
above (A. 2). But unbelief is the greatest of sins, because
it overthrows the foundation of the spiritual edifice. There-
fcre despair is not the greatest of sins.

Obj. 2. Further, A greater evil is opposed to a greater
good, as the Philosopher states [Ethic, viii.). But charity
is greater than hope, according to i Cor. xiii. 13. There-
fore hatred of God is a greater sin than despair.

Obj. 3. Further, In the sin of despair there is nothing
but inordinate aversion from God: whereas in other sins
there is not only inordinate aversion from God, but also
an inordinate conversion. Therefore the sin of despair
is not more but less grave than other sins.

247 DESPAIR Q. 20. Art. 3

On the contrary, An incurable sin seems to be most
grievous, according to Jerem. xxx. 12: Thy bruise is in-
curable, thy ivound is very grievous. Now the sin of despair
is incurable, according to Jerem. xv. 18: My wound is
desperate so as to refuse to be healed.'^ Therefore despair
is a most grievous sin.

/ answer that. Those sins which are contrary to the
theological virtues are in themselves more grievous than
others: because, since the theological virtues have God for
their object, the sins which are opposed to them imply
aversion from God directly and principally. Now every
mortal sin takes its principal malice and gravity from the
fact of its turning away from God, for if it were possible to
turn to a mutable good, even inordinately, without turning
away from God, it would not be a mortal sin. Consequently
a sin which, first and of its very nature, includes aversion
from God, is most grievous among mortal sins.

Now unbelief, despair and hatred of God are opposed
to the theological virtues: and among them, if we compare
hatred of God and unbelief to despair, we shall find that,
in themselves, that is, in respect of their proper species,
they are more grievous. For unbelief is due to a man not
believing God's own truth; while the hatred of God arises
from man's will being opposed to God's goodness itself;
whereas despair consists in a man ceasing to hope for a share
of God's goodness. Hence it is clear that unbelief and
hatred of God are against God as He is in Himself, while
despair is against Him, according as His good is partaken
of by us. Wherefore strictly speaking it is a more grievous
sin to disbelieve God's truth, or to hate God, than not to
hope to receive glory from Him.

If, however, despair be compared to the other two sins
from our point of view, then despair is more dangerous,
since hope withdraws us from evils and induces us to seek
for good things, so that when hope is given up, men rush
headlong into sin, and are drawn away from good works.
Wherefore a gloss on Prov. xxiv. 10, // thou lose hope being

* Vulg., — Why is my wound, etc. . . . ?

Q. 20. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 248

weary in the day of distress, thy strength shall he diminished,
says: Nothing is more hateful than despair, for the man
that has it loses his constancy both in the every day toils of
this life, and, what is worse, in the battle of faith. And
Isidore says {De Sum. Bono ii.): To commit a crime is to
kill the soul, hut to despair is to fall into hell.

Fourth Article,
whether despair arises from sloth ?

We proceed thits to the Fourth Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that despair does not arise from
sloth. Because different causes do not give rise to one
same effect. Now despair of the future life arises from
lust, according to Gregory (Moral, xxxi.). Therefore it
does not arise from sloth.

Obj. 2. Further, Just as despair is contrary to hope, so
is sloth contrary to spiritual joy. But spiritual joy arises
from hope, according to Rom., xii. 12, rejoicing in hope.
Therefore sloth arises from despair, and not vice versa.

Obj. 3. Further, Contrary effects have contrary causes.
Now hope, the contrary of which is despair, seems to pro-
ceed from the consideration of Divine favours, especially
the Incarnation, for Augustine says {De Trin. xiii.) : Nothing
was so necessary to raise our hope, than that we should be
shown how much God loves us. Now what greater proof could
we have of this than that God's Son should deign to unite
Himself to our nature ? Therefore despair arises rather
from the neglect of the above consideration than from sloth.

On the contrary, Gregory {Moral, xxxi.) reckons despair
among the effects of sloth.

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. XVII., A. i: I. -II.,
Q. XL., A. i), the object of hope is a good, difficult but
possible to obtain by oneself or by another. Consequently
the hope of obtaining happiness may be lacking in a person
in two ways: first, through his not deeming it an arduous
good, secondly, through his deeming it impossible to obtain
either by himself, or by another. Now, the fact that

249 DESPAIR Q. 20. Art 4

spiritual goods taste good to us no more, or seem to be
goods of no great account, is chiefly due to our affections
being infected with the love of bodily pleasures, among
which, sexual pleasures hold the first place : for the love of
those pleasures leads man to have a distaste for spiritual
things, and not to hope for them as arduous goods. In this
way despair is caused by lust.

On the other hand, the fact that a man deems an arduous
good impossible to obtain, either by himself or by another,
is due to his being over downcast, because when this state
of mind dominates his affections, it seems to him that he
will never be able to rise to any good. And since sloth is
a sadness that casts down the spirit, in this way despair is
born of sloth.

Now this is the proper object of hope, — that the thing
is possible, because the good and the arduous regard other
passions also. Hence despair is born of sloth in a more
special way; though it may arise from lust, for the reason
given above.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2. According to the Philosopher {Rhet. i.),
just as hope gives rise to joy, so, when a man is joyful he
has greater hope : and, accordingly, those who are sorrowful
fall the more easily into despair, according to 2 Cor. ii. 7:
Lest . . . such an one be swallowed up by overmuch sorrow
Yet, since the object of hope is good, to which the appetite
tends naturally, and which it shuns, not naturally but only
on account of some supervening obstacle, it follows that,
more directly, hope gives birth to joy, while on the contrary
despair is born of sorrow.

Reply Obj. 3. This very neglect to consider the Divine
favours arises from sloth. For when a man is influenced by
a certain passion he considers chiefly the things which pertain
to that passion : so that a man who is full of sorrow does not
easily think of great and joyful things, but only of sad
things, unless by a great effort he turn his thoughts away
from sadness.

QUESTION XXI.

OF PRESUMPTION.

[hi Four Articles.)

We must now consider presumption, under which head
there are four points of inquiry: (i) What is the object in
which presumption trusts ? (2) Whether presumption is
a sin ? (3) To what is it opposed ? (4) From what vice
does it arise ?

First Article.

whether presumption trusts in god, or in
our own power ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that presumption, which is a sin
against the Holy Ghost, trusts, not in Gcd, but in our own
power. For the lesser the power, the more grievously does
he sin who trusts in it too much. But man's power is
less than God's. Therefore it is a more grievous sin to
presume on human power than to presume on the power
of God. Now the sin against the Holy Ghost is most
grievous. Therefore presumption, which is reckoned a
species of sin against the Holy Ghost, trusts to human
rather than to Divine power.

Ohj. 2. Further, Other sins arise from the sin against
the Holy Ghost, for this sin is called malice which is a
source from which sins arise. Now other sins seem to arise
from the presumption whereby man presumes on himself,
rather than from the presumption whereby he presumes on
God, since self-love is the origin of sin, according to Augustine

250

251 PRESUMPTION Q. 21. Art. I

(De Civ. Dei xiv.). Therefore it seems that presumption
which is a sin against the Holy Ghost, rehes chiefly on
human power.

Obj. 3. Further, Sin arises from the inordinate con-
version to a mutable good. Now presumption is a sm.
Therefore it arises from turning to human power, which is
a mutable good, rather than from turning to the power of
God, which is an immutable good.

On the contrary, Just as, through despair, a man despises
the Divine mercy, on which hope relies, so, through pre-
sumption, he despises the Divine justice, which punishes
the sinner. Now justice is in God even as mercy is. There-
fore, just as despair consists in aversion from God, so
presumption consists in an inordinate conversion to Him.

/ answer that, Presumption seems to imply immoderate
hope. Now the object of hope is an arduous possible good:
and a thing is possible to a man in two ways, first by his
own power, secondly by the power of God alone. With
regard to either hope there may be presumption owing to
lack of moderation. As to the hope whereby a man relies
on his own power, there is presumption if he tends to a good
as though it were possible to him, whereas it surpasses
his powers, according to Judith vi. 15: Thou humblest them
that presume of themselves. This presumption is contrary
to the virtue of magnanimity which holds to the mean in
this kind of hope.

But as to the hope whereby a man relies on the power
of God, there may be presumption through immoderation,
in the fact that a man tends to some good as though it
were possible by the power and mercy of God. whereas it
is not possible, for instance, if a man hope to obtain pardon
without repenting, or glor}^ without merits. This pre-
sumption is, properly, the sin against the Holy Ghost,
because, to wit, by presuming thus a man removes or
despises the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby he is
withdrawn from sin.

Reply Obj. i. As stated above (O. XX., A. 3: L-IT,
Q. LXXIIL, A. 3) a sin which is against God is, in its

Q. 21. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 252

genus, graver than other sins. Hence presumption whereby
a man rehes on God inordinately, is a more grievous sin
than the presumption of trusting in one's own power, since
to rely on the Divine power for obtaining what is un-
becoming to God, is to depreciate the Divine power, and it
is evident that it is a graver sin to detract from the Divine
power than to exaggerate one's own.

Reply Obj. 2. The presumption whereby a man presumes
inordinately on God, includes self-love, whereby he loves
his own good inordinately. For when we desire a thing
very much, we think we can easily procure it through
others, even though we cannot.

Reply Obj. 3. Presumption on God's mercy impHes
both conversion to a mutable good, in so far as it arises
from an inordinate desire of one's own good, and aversion
from the immutable good, in as much as it ascribes to the
Divine power that which is unbecoming to it, for thus man
turns away from God's power.

Second Article,
whether presumption is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that presumption is not a sin. For
no sin is a reason why man should be heard by God. Yet,
through presumption some are heard by God, for it is
written (Judith vi. 17) : Hear me a poor wretch making
supplication to Thee, and presuming of Thy mercy. There-
fore presumption on God's mercy is not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Presumption denotes excessive hope.
But there cannot be excess of that hope which is in God,
since His power and mercy are infinite. Therefore it seems
that presumption is not a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, That which is a sin does not excuse
from sin. But presumption excuses from sin: for the
Master says (2 Sent., D. 22) that Adam sinned less, because
he sinned in the hope of pardon, which seems to indicate
presumption Therefore presumption is not a sin.

253 PRESUMPTION Q. 21. Art. 2

On the contrary, It is reckoned a species of sin against
the Holy Ghost.

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. XX., A. i) with regard
to despair, every appetitive movement that is conformed
to a false intellect, is evil in itself and sinful. Now pre-
sumption is an appetitive movement, since it denotes an
inordinate hope. Moreover it is conformed to a false
intellect, just as despair is: for just as it is false that God
does not pardon the repentant, or that He does not turn
sinners to repentance, so is it false that He grants forgiveness
to those who persevere in their sins, and that He gives glory
to those who cease from good works : and it is to this estimate
that the movement of presumption is conformed.

Consequently presumption is a sin, but less grave than
despair, since, on account of His infinite goodness, it is more
proper to God to have mercy and to spare, than to punish:
for the former becomes God in Himself, the latter becomes
Him by reason of our sins.

Reply Obj. 1. Presumption sometimes stands for hope,
because even the right hope which we have in God seems
to be presumption, if it be measured according to man's
estate: yet it is not, if we look at the immensity of the
goodness of (lod.

Reply Obj. 2. Presumption does not denote excessive hope,
as though man hoped too much in God; but through man
hoping to obtain from God something unbecoming to Him;
which is the same as to hope too little in Him, since it
implies a depreciation of His power, as stated above
(A. I, ad i).

Reply Obj. 3. To sin with the intention of persevering in sin
and through the hope of being pardoned, is presumptuous,
and this does not diminish, but increases sin. To sin, how-
ever, with the hope of obtaining pardon some time, and with
the intention of refraining from sin and of repenting of it,
is not presumptuous, but diminishes sin, because this seems
to indicate a will less hardened in sin.

Q 21. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 254

Third Article,
whether presumption is more opposed to fear than

TO HOPE ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that presumption is more opposed
to fear than to hope. Because inordinate fear is opposed
to right fear. Now presumption seems to pertain to in-
ordinate fear, for it is written (Wis. xvii. 10): A troubled
conscience always presumes (Douay, — forecasteth) grievous
things, and [ibid. 11) that fear is a help to presumption.'^
Therefore presumption is opposed to fear rather than to hope.

Obj. 2. Further, Contraries are most distant from one
another. Now presumption is more distant from fear than
from hope, because presumption implies movement to
something, just as hope does, whereas fear denotes move-
ment from a thing. Therefore presumption is contrary to
fear rather than to hope.

Obj. 3. Further, Presumption exchides fear altogether,
whereas it does not exclude hope altogether, but only the
rectitude of hope. Since therefore contraries destroy one
another, it seems that presumption is contrary to fear
rather than to hope.

On the contrary, When two vices are opposed to one
another they are contrary to the same virtue, as timidity
and audacity are opposed to fortitude. Now the sin of
presumption is contrary to the sin of despair, which is
directly opposed to hope. Therefore it seems that pre-
sumption also is more directly opposed to hope.

/ answer that. As Augustine states [Contra Julian, iv.),
every virtue not only has a contrary vice manifestly distinct
from it, as temerity is opposed to prudence, but also a sort of
kindred vice, alike, not in truth but only in its deceitful appear-
ance, as cunning is opposed to prudence. This agrees with
the Philosopher who says {Ethic, ii.) that a virtue seems to
have more in common with one of the contrary vices than

* Vulg., — Fear is nothing else hut a yielding up of the succours
from thought.

255 PRESUMPTION Q. 21. Art. 4

with the other, as temperance with insensibility, and
fortitude with audacity.

Accordingly presumption appears to be manifestly
opposed to fear, especially servile fear, which looks at the
punishment arising from God's justice, the remission of
which presumption hopes for ; yet by a kind of false likeness
it is more opposed to hope, since it denotes an inordinate
hope in God. And since things are more directly opposed
when they belong to the same genus, than when they belong
to different genera, it follows that presumption is more
directly opposed to hope than to fear. For they both
regard and rely on the same object, hope ordinately,
presumption inordinately.

Reply Ohj. i. Just as hope is misused in speaking of evils,
and properly applied in speaking of good, so is presumption:
it is in this way that inordinate fear is called presumption.

Reply Ohj. 2. Contraries are things that are most distant
from one another within the same genus. Now presumption
and hope denote a movement of the same genus, which can
be either ordinate or inordinate. Hence presumption is
more directly opposed to hope than to fear, since it is opposed
to hope in respect of its specific difference, as an inordinate
thing to an ordinate one, whereas it is opposed to fear, in
respect of its generic difference, which is the movement of
hope.

Reply Ohj. 3. Presumption is opposed to fear by a generic
contrariety, and to the virtue of hope by a specihc con-
trariety. Hence presumption excludes fear altogether
even generically, whereas it does not exclude hope except
by reason of its difference, by excluding its ordinateness.

Fourth Article,
whether presumption arises from vainglory ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —
Ohjection i. It seems that presumption does not arise
from vainglory. For presumption seems to rely most of

Q. 21. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 256

all on the Divine mercy. Now mercy (misericordia) regards
unhappiness [miseriam) which is contrary to glory. There-
fore presumption does not arise from vainglory.

Ohj. 2. Further, Presumption is opposed to despair.
Now despair arises from sorrow, as stated above (0. XX.,
A. 4, ad 2). Since therefore opposites have opposite causes,
presumption would seem to arise from pleasure, and con-
sequently from sins of the flesh, which give the most absorb-
ing pleasure.

Obj. 3. Further, The vice of presumption consists in
tending to some impossible good, as though it were possible.
Now it is owing to ignorance that one deems an impossible
thing to be possible. Therefore presumption arises from
ignorance rather than from vainglor}^.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral, xxxi.) that pre-
sumption of novelties is a daughter of vainglory.

I answer that, As stated above (A. i), presumption is
twofold ; one whereby a man relies on his own power, when
he attempts something beyond his power, as though it
were possible to him. Suchlike presumption clearly arises
from vainglory; for it is owing to a great desire for
glory, that a man attempts things beyond his power, and
especially novelties which call for greater admiration.
Hence Gregory states explicitly that presumption of
novelties is a daughter of vainglory.

The other presumption is an inordinate trust in the
Divine mercy or power, consisting in the hope of obtaining
glory without merits, or pardon without repentance. Such-
like presumption seems to arise directly from pride, as
though man thought so much of himself as to esteem that
God would not punish him or exclude him from glory,
however much he might be a sinner.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections,

QUESTION XXII.

OF THE PRECEPTS RELATING TO HOPE AND FEAR.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider the precepts relating to hope and
fear : under which head there are two points of inquiry :
(i) The precepts relating to hope: (2) The precepts relating
to fear.

First Article,
whether there should be a precept of hope ?

We proceed thus to the First Article :- —

Objection 1. It seems that no precept should be given
relating to the virtue of hope. For when an effect is suffi-
ciently procured by one cause, there is no need to induce
it by another. Now man is sufficiently induced by his
natural; inclination to hope for good. Therefore there is
no need of a precept of the Law to induce him to do this.

Obj. 2. Further, Since precepts are given about acts of
virtue, the chief precepts are about the acts of the chief
virtues. Now the chief of all the virtues are the three
theological virtues, viz. hope, faith and charity. Conse-
quently, as the chief precepts of the Law are those of the
decalogue, to which all others may be reduced, as stated
above (L-IL, Q. C, A. 3), it seems that if any precept of
hope were given, it should be found among the precepts
of the decalogue. But it is not to be found there. Therefore
it seems that the Law should contain no precept of hope.

Obj. 3. Further, To prescribe an act of virtue is equivalent

II. ii. li 257 I J

Q. 22. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 258

to a prohibition of the act of the opposite vice. Now no
precept is to be found forbidding despair which is contrary
to hope. Therefore it seems unfitting for a precept of hope
to be given.

On the contrary, Augustine says on John xv. 12, This is
My commandment, that you love one another (Tract. Ixxxiii.
in Joan.) : How many things are commanded us about faith !
How many relating to hope ! Therefore it is fitting that
some precepts should be given about hope.

/ answer that, Among the precepts contained in Holy
Writ, some belong to the substance of the Law, others are
preambles to the Law. The preambles to the Law are those
without which no law is possible : such are the precepts
relating to the act of faith and the act of hope, because the
act of faith inclines man's mind so that he believes the
Author of the Law to be One to Whom he owes submission,
while, by the hope of a reward, he is induced to observe
the precepts. The precepts that belong to the sub-
stance of the Law are those which relate. to right conduct
and are imposed on man already subject and ready to
obey: wherefore when the Law was given these precepts
were set forth from the very outset under the form of a
command.

Yet the precepts of hope and faith were not to be given
under the form of a command, since, unless man already
believed and hoped, it would be useless to give him the
Law: but, just as the precept of faith had to be given under
the form of an announcement or reminder, as stated above
(Q. XVL, A. i), so too, the precept of hope, in the first
promulgation of the Law, had to be given under the form
of a promise. For he who promises rewards to them that
obey him, by that very fact, urges them to hope : hence all
the promises contained in the Law are incitements to hope.

Since, however, when once the Law has been given, it is
for a wise man to induce men not only to observe the pre-
cepts, but also, and much more, to safeguard the foundation
of the Law, therefore, after the first promulgation of the
Law, Holy Writ holds out to man many inducements to

259 PRECEPTS OF HOPE AND FEAR Q. 22. Art. i

hope, even by way of warning or command, and not merely
by way of promise, as in the Law; for instance in the Psalm
(Ixi. g) : Hope (Douay, — Trust) in Him all ye congregation
of the people, and in many other passages of the Scriptures.

Reply Ohj. i. Nature inclines us to hope for the good
which is proportionate to human nature; but for man to
hope for a supernatural good he had to be induced by the
authority of the Divine law, partly by promises, partly
by admonitions and commands. Nevertheless there was
need for precepts of the Divine law to be given even for
those things to which natural reason inclines us, such as the
acts of the moral virtues, for the sake of insuring a greater
stability, especially since the natural reason of man was
clouded by the lusts of sin.

Reply Ohj. 2. The precepts of the law of the decalogue
belong to the first promulgation of the Law: hence there
was no need for a precept of hope among the precepts of
the decalogue, and it was enough to induce men to hope
by the inclusion of certain promises, as in the case of the
first and fourth commandments.

Reply Ohj. 3. In those observances to which man is
bound as under a duty, it is enough that he receive an
affirmative precept as to what he has to do, wherein is
implied the prohibition of what he must avoid doing: thus
he is given a precept concerning the honour due to parents,
but not a prohibition against dishonouring them, except
by the law inflicting punishment on those who dishonour
their parents. And since in order to be saved it is man's
duty to hope in God, he had to be induced to do so by one
of the above ways, affirmatively, so to speak, wherein is
implied the prohibition of the opposite.

O. 22. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 260

Second Article,
vvhrithek there should have been given a precept

OF FEAR ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —
Objection i. It seems that, in the Law, there should not
have been given a precept of fear. For the fear of God
is about things which are a preamble to the Law, since it
is the beginning of wisdom. Now things which are a pre-
amble to the Law do not come under a precept of the Law.
Therefore no precept of fear should be given in the Law.

Obj. 2. Further, Given the cause, the effect is also given.
Now love is the cause of fear, since every fear proceeds from
some kind of love, as Augustine states {Qq. 83). Therefore
given the precept of love, it would have been superfluous
to command fear.

Obj. 3. Further, Presumption, in a way, is opposed to
fear. But the Law contains no prohibition against pre-
sumption. Therefore it seems that neither should any
precept of fear have been given.

On the contrary, It is written (Deut. x. 12): And now,
Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but that
thou fear the Lord thy God? But He requires of us that
which He commands us to do. Therefore it is a matter
of precept that man should fear God.

I answer that, Fear is twofold, servile and filial. Now just
as man is induced, by the hope of rewards, to observe
precepts of law, so too is he induced thereto by the fear of
punishment, which fear is servile.

And just as according to what has been said (A. i), in
the promulgation of the Law there was no need for a pre-
cept of the act of hope, and men were to be induced thereto
by promises, so neither was there need for a precept, under
form of command, of fear which regards punishment, and
men were to be induced thereto by the threat of punish-
ment: and this was realized both in the precepts of the

26i PRECEPTS OF HOPE AND FEAR Q. 22. Art. 2

decalogue, and afterwards, in due sequence, in the secondary
precepts of the Law.

Yet, just as the wise men and the prophets who, conse-
quently, strovx to strengthen man in the observance of the
Law, delivered their teaching about hope under the form
of admonition or command, so too did they in the matter of
fear.

On the other hand filial fear which shows reverence to
(iod, is a sort of genus in respect of the love of (iod, and a
kind of principle of all observances connected with rever-
ence for (iod. Hence precepts of filial fear are given in
the Law, even as precepts of love, because each is a preamble
to the external acts prescribed by the Law and to which
the precepts of the decalogue refer. Hence in the passage
quoted in the argument On the contrary, man is required
to have fear, to walk in God's ways, by worshipping Him,
and to love Him.

Reply Obj. 1. Filial fear is a preamble to the Law, not
as though it were extrinsic thereto, but as being the begin-
ning of the Law, just as love is. Hence precepts are given
of both, since they are like general principles of the wholti
Law.

Reply Obj. 2. From love proceeds filial fear, as also other
good works that are done from charity. Hence, just as
after the precept of charity, precepts are given of the other
acts of virtue, so at the same time precepts are given of
fear and of the love of charity, just as, in- demonstrative
sciences, it is not enough to lay down the first principles,
unless the conclusions also are given which follow from
them proximately or remotely.

Reply Obj. 3. Inducement to fear suffices to exclude
presumption, even as inducement to hope suffices to exclude
despair, as stated above (A. i. ad 3).

QUESTION XXIII.

OF CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF.

{In Eight Articles.)

In proper sequence, we must consider charity ; and (i) charity
itself: (2) the corresponding gift of wisdom. The first
consideration will be fivefold: (i) Charity itself: (2) The
object of charity: (3) Its acts: (4) The opposite vices:
(5) The precepts relating thereto.

The first of these considerations will be twofold: (i) Charity,
considered as regards itself: (2) Charity, considered in its
relation to its subject. Under the first head there are
eight points of inquiry: (i) Whether charity is friendship ?

(2) Whether it is something created in the soul ?

(3) Whether it is a virtue ? (4) Whether it is a special
virtue ? (5) Whether it is one virtue ? (6) Whether it
is the greatest of the virtues ? (7) Whether any true
virtue is possible without it ? (8) Whether it is the form of
the virtues ?

First Article,
whether charity is friendship ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not friendship. For
nothing is so appropriate to friendship as to dwell with
one's friend, according to the Philosopher {Ethic, viii.).
Now charity is of man towards God and the angels, whose
dwelling (Douay, — conversation) is not with men (Dan. ii. 11).
Therefore charity is not friendship.

Ohj. 2. Further, There is no friendship without return
of love [Ethic, viii.). But charity extends even to one's

262

263 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 23. Art. i

enemies, according to Matth. v. 44: Love your enemies.
Therefore charity is not friendship.

Ohj. 3. Further, According to the Philosopher [Ethic, viii.)
there are three kinds of friendship, directed respectively
towards the delightful, the useful, or the virtuous. Now
charity is not friendship for the useful or delightful; for
Jerome says in his letter to Paulinus which is to be found
at the beginning of the Bible: True friendship cemented
by Christ, is where men are drawn together, not by household
interests, not by mere bodily presence, not by crafty and cajoling
flattery, but by the fear of God, and the study of the Divine
Scriptures. No more is it friendship for the virtuous,
since by charity we love even sinners, whereas friendship
based on the virtuous is only for virtuous men [Ethic, viii.).
Therefore charity is not friendship.

On the contrary. It is written (John xv. 15): / will not
now call you servants . . . but My friends. Now this was
said to them by reason of nothing else than charity. There-
fore charity is friendship.

/ answer that, According to the Philosopher [Ethic, viii.),
not every love has the character of friendship, but that love
which is together with benevolence, when, to wit, we love
someone so as to wish good to him. If, however, we
do not wish good to what we love, but wish its good for
ourselves, (thus we are said to love wine, or a horse, or
the like) it is love not of friendship, but of a kind of con-
cupiscence. For it would be absurd to speak of having
friendship for wine or for a horse.

Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for
a certain mutual love is requisite, since friendsh'ip is between
friend and friend : and this well-wishing is founded on some
kind of communication.

Accordingly, since there is a communication between
man and (lod, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness
to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this
same communication, of which it is written (i Cor. i. 9):
God is faithful : by Whoju you arc called unto the fellowship
of His Son. The love which is based on this communica-

Q. 23. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLCXUCA " 264

tion, is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the
friendship of man for God.

Reply Ohj. i. Man's Hfe is twofold. There is his outward
hfe in respect of his sensitive and corporeal nature : and with
regard to this life there is no communication or fellowship
between us and God or the angels. The other is man's
spiritual life in respect of his mind, and with regard to this
life there is fellowship between us and both God and the
angels, imperfectly indeed in this present state of hfe,
wherefore it is written (Phil. iii. 20) : Our conversation is in
heaven. But this conversation will be perfected in heaven,
when His servants shall serve Him, and they shall see His face
(Apoc. xxii. 3, 4). Therefore charity is imperfect here, but
will be perfected in heaven.

Reply Ohj. 2. Friendship extends to a person in two ways :
first in respect of- himself, and in this way friendship never
extends but to one's friend : secondly, it extends to someone
in respect of another, as, when a man has friendship for a
certain person, for his sake he loves all belonging to him, be
they children, servants, or connected with him in any
way. Indeed, so much do we love our friends, that for
their sake we love all who belong to them, even if they
hurt or hate us; so that, in this way, the friendship of
charity extends even to our enemies, whom we love out
of charity in relation to God, to Whom the friendship of
charity is chiefly directed.

Reply Ohj. 3. The friendship that is based on the virtuous
is directed to none but a virtuous man as the principal
person, but for his sake we love those who belong to him,
even though they be not virtuous : in this way charity,
which above all is friendship based on the virtuous, extends
to sinners, whom, out of charity, we love for God's sake.

265 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IX ITSELF g. 23. Art. 2

Second Article,
whether charity is something created in

THE SOUL ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not something
created in the soul. For Augustine says (De Trin. viii.) :
He that loveth his neighbour, ccnsequcntly , Icveth love itself.
Now God is love. Therefore it follows that he loves God
in the first place. Again he says (De Trin. xv.) : // was
said : God is charity, even as it was said : God is a Spirit.
Therefore charity is not something created in the soul,
but is God Himself.

Obj. 2. Further, (xod is the life of the soul spiritually,
just as the soul is the life of the body, according to Deut.
XXX. 20: He is thy life. Now the soul by itself quickens
the body. Therefore God quickens the soul by Himself.
But He quickens it by charity, according to i John iii. 14:
We knoisj that we have passed from death to life, because we
love the brethren. Therefore God is charity itself.

Obj. 3. F'urther, No created thing is of infinite power;

on the contrary every creature is vanity. But charity

is not vanity, indeed it is opposed to vanity; and it is of

infinite power, since it brings the human soul to the infinite

good. Therefore charity is not something created in the
soul.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Dc Doctr. Christ, iii.) :
By charity I mean the movement of the soul towards the enjoy-
ment of God for His own sake. But a movement of the soul
is something created in the soul. Therefore charity is
something created in the soul.

/ answer that, The Master looks thoroughly into this
question in O. XVII. of the First Book, and concludes that
charity is not something created in the soul, but is the Holy
(ihost Himself dwelling in the mind. Nor does he mean
to say that this movement of love whereby we love God is

Q. 23. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 266

the Holy Ghost Himself, but that this movement is from
the Holy Ghost without any intermediary habit, whereas
other virtuous acts are from the Holy Ghost by means of
the habits of other virtues, for instance the habit of faith
or hope or of some other virtue : and this he said on account
of the excellence of charity.

But if we consider the matter aright, this would be,
on the contrary, detrimental to charity. For when the
Holy Ghost moves the human mind the movement of charity
does not proceed from this motion in such a way that the
human mind be merely moved, without being the principle
of this movement, as when a body is moved by some
extrinsic motive power. For this is contrary to the nature
of a voluntary act, whose principle needs to be in itself,
as stated above (I. -II., Q. VI., A. i) : so that it would follow
that to love is not a voluntary act, which involves a contra-
diction, since love, of its very nature, implies an act of
the will.

Likewise, neither can it be said that the Holy Ghost
moves the will in such a way to the act of loving, as though
the will were an instrument, for an instrument, though it
be a principle of action, nevertheless has not the power
to act or not to act, for then again the act would cease to
be voluntary and meritorious, whereas it has been stated
above (I. -II., Q. CXIV., A. 4) that the love of charity is
the root of merit : and, given that the will is moved by the
Holy Ghost to the act of love, it is necessary that the will
also should be the efficient cause of that act.

Now no act is perfectly produced by an active power,
unless it be connatural to that power by reason of some form
which is the principle of that action. Wherefore God,
Who moves all things to their due ends, bestowed on each
thing the form whereby it is inclined to the end appointed
to it by Him ; and in this way He ordereth all things sweetly
(Wis. viii. i). But it is evident that the act of charity
surpasses the nature of the power of the will, so that,
therefore, unless some form be superadded to the natural
power, inclining it to the act of love, this same act would

267 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 23. Art. 2

be less perfect than the natural acts and the acts of the
other powers ; nor would it be easy and pleasurable to per-
form. And this is evidently untrue, since no virtue has
such a strong inclination to its act as charity has, nor does
any virtue perform its act with so great pleasure. Therefore
it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity,
there should be in us some habitual form superadded to
the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity,
and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.

Reply Ohj. j. The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even
as It is wisdom, and goodness. Wherefore just as we are
said to be good with the goodness which is God, and wise
with the wisdom which is God (since the goodness whereby
we are formally good is a participation of Divine goodness,
and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share
of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally
we love our neighbour is a participation of Divine charity.
For this manner of speaking is common among the Platon-
ists, with whose doctrines Augustine was imbued; and the
lack of adverting to this has been to some an occasion of
error.

Reply Ohj. 2. God is effectively the life both of the soul
by charity, and of the body by the soul: but formally
charity is the life of the soul, even as the soul is the life
of the body. Consequently we may conclude from this
that just as the soul is immediately united to the body, so
is charity to the soul.

Reply Ohj. 3. Charity works formally. Now the efficacy
of a form depends on the power of the agent, who instils
the form, wherefore it is evident that charity is not vanity.
But because it produces an infinite effect, since, by justifying
the soul, it unites it to (iod, this proves the infinity of the
Divine power, which is the author of charity.

Q. 23. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOCilCA " 268

Third Article,
whether charity is a virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not a virtue. For
charity is a kind of friendship. Now philosophers do not
reckon friendship a virtue, as may be gathered from
Ethic, viii. ; nor is it numbered among the virtues whether
moral or intellectual. Neither, therefore, is charity a
virtue.

Obj. 2. Further, Virtue is the ultimate limit of power
(De Ccelo et Mundo i.). But charity is not something
ultimate, this applies rather to joy and peace. Therefore
it seems that charity is not a virtue, and that this should
be said rather of joy and peace.

Obj. 3. Further, Every virtue is an accidental habit.
But charity is not an accidental habit, since it is a more
excellent thing than the soul itself: whereas no accident
is more excellent than its subject. Therefore charity is
not a virtue.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Moribus Eccl. xi.):
Charity is a virtue which, when our affections are perfectly
ordered, unites us to God, for by it we love Him.

I answer that, Human acts are good according as they are
regulated by their due rule and measure. Wherefore
human virtue which is the principle of all man's good acts
consists in following the rule of human acts, which is two-
fold, as stated above (Q. XVII., A. i), viz. human reason
and Ciod.

Consequently just as moral virtue is defined as being
in accord with right reason, as stated in Ethic, ii., so too,
the nature of virtue consists in attaining God, as also
stated above with regard to faith (Q. IV., A. 5) and hope
(O. XVII., A. i). Wherefore, it follows that charity is a
virtue, for, since charity attains God, it unites us to God,
as evidenced by the authority of Augustine quoted above.

Reply Obj. 1. The Philosopher (Ethic, viii.) does not

269 CHARITY, CONSIDERED L\ ITSELF Q. 23. Art. 3

deny that friendship is a virtue, but aifirms that it is either
a virtue or with a virtue. For we might say that it is a
moral virtue about works done in respect of another person,
but under a different aspect from justice. For justice
is about works done in respect of another person, under
the aspect of the legal due, whereas friendship considers the
aspect of a friendly and moral duty, or rather that of a
gratuitous favour, as the Philosopher explains [Ethic, viii.).
Nevertheless it may be admitted that it is not a virtue
distinct of itself from the other virtues. For its praise-
worthiness and virtuovisness are derived merely from its
object, in so far, to wit, as it is based on the moral goodness
of the virtues. This is evident from the fact that not every
friendship is praiseworthy and virtuous, as in the case of
friendship based on pleasure or utility. Wherefore friend-
ship for the virtuous is something consequent to virtue
rather than a virtue. Moreover there is no comparison
with charity since it is not founded principally on the
virtue of a man, but on the goodness of God.

Reply Ohj. 2. It belongs to the same virtue to love a
man and to rejoice about him, since joy results from love,
as stated above (I.-IL, Q. XXV., A. 2) in the treatise on
the passions: wherefore love is reckoned a virtue, rather
than joy, which is an effect of love. And when virtue is
described as being something ultimate, we mean that it is
last, not in the order of effect, but in the order of excess,
just as one hundred pounds exceed sixty.

Reply Ohj. 3. Every accident is inferior to substance if
we consider its being, since substance has being in itself,
while an accident has its being in another: but considered
as to its species, an accident which results from the principles
of its subject is inferior to its subject, even as an effect is
inferior to its cause; whereas an accident that results from
a participation of some higher nature is superior to its
subject, in so far as it is a likeness of that higher nature,
even as light is superior to the diaphanous body. In this
way charity is superior to the soul, in as much as it is a
participation of the Holy Ghost;

Q. 23. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 270

Fourth Article..
whether charity is a special virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not a special virtue.
For Jerome says : Let me briefly define all virtue as the charity
whereby we love God ;* and Augustine says in De Moribus
Eccl. {De Civ. Dei xv. ) that virtue is the order of love. Now no
special virtue is included in the definition of virtue in general.
Therefore charity is not a special virtue.

Obj. 2. Further, That which extends to all works of virtue,
cannot be a special virtue. But charity extends to all
works of virtue, according to i Cor. xiii. 4: Charity is patient,
is kind, etc. ; indeed it extends to all human actions, accord-
ing to I Cor. xvi. 14: Let all your things be done in charity.
Therefore charity is not a special virtue.

Obj. 3. Further, The precepts of the Law refer to acts
of virtue. Now Augustine says (De Perfect. Human.
Justit. V.) that, ' Thou shall love ' is a general commandment,
and ' Thou shall not covet,' a general prohibition. Therefore
charity is a general virtue.

On the contrary, Nothing general is enumerated together
with what is special. But charity is enumerated together
with special virtues, viz. hope and faith, according to
I Cor. xiii. 13: And now there remain faith, hope, charity,
these three. Therefore charity is a special virtue.

/ answer that. Acts and habits are specified by their
objects, as shown above (L-IL, Q. XVIII., A. 2: Q. LIV.,
A. 2). Now the proper object of love is the good, as stated
above (I. -II., Q. XXVII., A. i), so that wherever there is a
special aspect of good, there is a special kind of love. But
the Divine good, inasmuch as it is the object of happiness,
has a special aspect of good, wherefore the love of charity,
which is the love of that good, is a special kind of love.
Therefore charity is a special virtue.

Reply Obj. i. Charity is included in the definition of every
virtue, not as being essentially every virtue, but because
* The quotation is from Augustine, Ep. clxvii,

271 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 23. Art. 5

every virtue depends on it in a way, as we shall state
further on (AA. 7, 8). In this same way prudence is in-
cluded in the definition of the moral virtues, as explained
in Ethic, ii., vi., from the fact that they depend on prudence.

Reply Ohj. 2. The virtue or art which is concerned about
the last end, commands the virtues or arts which are con-
cerned about other ends which are secondary, thus the
military art commands the art of horse-riding [Ethic, i.).
Accordingly since charity has for its object the last end of
human life, viz. everlasting happiness, it follows that it
extends to the acts of a man's whole life, by commanding
them, not by eliciting immediately all acts of virtue.

Reply Ohj. 3. The precept of love is said to be a general
command, because all other precepts are reduced thereto
as to their end, according to i Tim. i. 5: The end of the
commandment is charity.

Fifth Article,
whether charity is one virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not one virtue. For
habits are distinct according to their objects. Now there
are two objects of charity, — God and our neighbour, which
are infinitely distant from one another. Therefore charity
is not one virtue.

Ohj. 2. Further, Different aspects of the object diversify
a habit, even though that object be one in reality, as shown
above (O. XVII., A. b: I.-IL, 0. LIV., A. 2, ad i). Now
there are many aspects under which God is an object of
love, because we are debtors to His love by reason of each
one of His favours. Therefore charity is not one virtue.

Ohj. 3. Further, Charity comprises friendship for our
neighbour. But the Philosopher reckons several species
of friendship (Ethic, viii.). Therefore charity is not one
virtue, but is divided into a number of various species.

0)1 the contrary, Just as God is the object of faith, so is
He the object of charity. Now faith is one virtue by reason

Q. 23. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 272

of the unity of the Divine truth, according to Eph. iv. 5:
One faith. Therefore charity also is one virtue by reason
of the unity of the Divine goodness.

/ answer that, Charity, as stated above (A. i) is a kind
of friendship of man for God. Now the different species of
friendship arc differentiated, first of all, in respect of a
diversity of end, and in this way there are three species of
friendship, namely friendship for the useful, for the delight-
ful, and for the virtuous; secondly, in respect of the different
kinds of communion on which friendships are based; thus
there is one species of friendship between kinsmen, and
another between fellow citizens or fellow travellers, the
former being based on natural communion, the latter on
civil communion or on the comradeship of the road, as the
Philosopher explains {Ethic, viii.).

Now charity cannot be differentiated in either of these
ways: for its end is one, namely the goodness of God;
and the fellowship of everlasting happiness, on which this
friendship is based, is also one. Hence it follows that
charity is simply one virtue, and not divided into several
species.

Reply Obj. i. This argument would hold, if God and our
neighbour were equally objects of charity. But this is
not true: for God is the principal object of charity, while
our neighbour is loved out of charity for God's sake.

Reply Obj. 2. God is loved by charity for His own sake:
wherefore charity regards principally but one aspect of
lovableness, namely God's goodness, which is His substance,
according to Ps. cv. i : Give glory to the Lord for He is good.
Other reasons that inspire us with love for Him, or which
make it our duty co love Him, are secondary and result
from the first.

Reply Obj. 3. Human friendship of which the Philosopher
treats has various ends and various forms of fellowship.
This does not apply to charity, as stated above: wherefore
the comparison fails.

273 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 23. Art. 6

Sixth Article,
whether charity is the most excellent of the

VIRTUES ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not the most excellent
of the virtues. Because the higher power has the higher
virtue even as it has a higher operation. Now the intellect
is higher than the will, since it directs the will. Therefore
faith, which is in the intellect, is more excellent than
charity which is in the will.

Ohj. 2. Further, The thing by which another works seems
the less excellent of the two, even as a servant, by whom his
master works, is beneath his master. Now faith . . .
worketh by charity, according to Gal. v. 6. Therefore faith
is more excellent than charity.

Obj. 3. Further, That which is by way of addition to
another seems to be the more perfect of the two. Now
hope seems to be something additional to charity: for the
object of charity is good, whereas the object of hope is
an arduous good. Therefore hope is more excellent than
charity.

On the contrary, It is written (i Cor. xiii. 13) : The greater
of these is charity,

I answer that. Since good, in human acts, depends on their
being regulated by the due rule, it must needs be that
human virtue, which is a principle of good acts, consists
in attaining the rule of human acts. Now the rule of human
acts is twofold, as stated above (A. 3), namely, human reason
and God: yet God is the first rule, whereby even human
reason must be regulated. Consequently the theological
virtues, which consist in attaining this first rule, since their
object is God, are more excellent than the moral, or the
intellectual virtues, which consist in attaining human reason:
and it follows that among the theological virtues themselves,
the first place belongs to that which attains God most.

II. ii. I. 18

Q 2^ Art 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 274

Now that which is of itself always ranks before that which
is by another. But faith and hope attain God indeed in
so far as we derive from Him the knowledge of truth or
the acquisition of good, whereas charity attains God Him-
self that it may rest in Him, but not that something may
accrue to us from Him. Hence charity is more excellent
than faith or hope, and, consequently, than all the other
virtues, just as prudence, which by itself attains reason,
is more excellent than the other moral virtues, which attain
reason in so far as it appoints the mean in human operations
or passions.

Reply Obj. i. The operation of the intellect is completed
by the thing understood being in the intellectual subject,
so that the -excellence of the intellectual operation is assessed
according to the measure of the intellect. On the other
hand, the operation of the will and of every appetitive
power is completed in the tendency of the appetite
towards a thing as its term, wherefore the excellence of
the appetitive operation is gauged according to the thing
which is the object of the operation. Now those things
which are beneath the soul are more excellent in the soul
than they are in themselves, because a thing is contained
according to the mode of the container (De Causis xii.).
On the other hand, things that arc above the soul, are more
excellent in themselves than they are in the soul. Conse-
quently it is better to know than to love the things that are
beneath us; for which reason the Philosopher gave the
preference to the intellectual virtues over the moral virtues
[Ethic, vi.): whereas the love of the things that are above
us, especially of God, ranks before the knowledge of such
things. Therefore charity is more excellent than faith.

Reply Obj. 2. Faith works by love, not instrumentally,
as a master by his servant, but as by its proper form:
hence the argument does not prove.

Reply Obj. 3. The same good is the object of charity
and of hope: but charity implies union with that good,
whereas hope implies distance therefrom. Hence charity
docs not regard that good as being arduous, as hope does.

275 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 23. Art. 7

since what is already united has not the character of
arduous: and this shows that charity is more perfect than
hope.

Seventh Article,
whether any true virtue is possible without

CHARITY ?

Wc proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that there can be true virtue with-
out charity. For it is proper to virtue to produce a good
act. Now those who have not charity, do some good
actions, as when they clothe the naked, or feed the hungry
and so forth. Therefore true virtue is possible without
charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Charity is not possible without faith,
since it comes of an unfeigned faith, as the Apostle says
(i Tim. i. 5). Now, in unbelievers, there can be true
chastity, if they curb their concupiscences, and true justice,
if they judge rightly. Therefore true virtue is possible
without charity.

Obj. 3. Further, Science and art arc virtues, according
to Ethic, vi. But they are to be found in sinners who lack
charity. Therefore true virtue can be without charity.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Cor. xiii. 3): // /
should distribute all my goods to the poor, and if I should
deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth
me nothing. And yet true virtue is very profitable, accord-
ing to Wis. viii. 7 : She teacheth temperance, and prudence,
and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can
have nothing more profitable in life. Therefore no true virtue
is possible without charity.

/ answer that, Virtue is ordered to the good, as stated
above (I. -I I., O. LV., A. 4). Now the good is chiefly an
end, for things directed to the end are not said to be good
except in relation to the end. Accordingly, just as the
end is twofold, the last end, and the proximate end, so
also, is good twofold, one, the ultimate and universal good.

Q. 23. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 276

the other proximate and particular. The ultimate and
principal good of man is the enjoyment of God, according
to Ps. Ixxii. 28: It is good for me to adhere to God, and to
this good man is ordered by charity. Man's secondary
and, as it were, particular good may be twofold: one is
truly good, because, considered in itself, it can be directed
to the principal good, which is the last end; while the other
is good apparently and not truly, because it leads us away
from the final good. Accordingly it is evident that simply
true virtue is that which is directed to man's principal
good; thus also the Philosopher says (Phys. vii.) that
virtue is the disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best :
and in this way no true virtue is possible without charity.
If, however, we take virtue as being ordered to some
particular end, then we may speak of virtue being where
there is no charity, in so far as it is directed to some parti-
cular good. But if this particular good is not a true, but
an apparent good, it is not a true virtue that is ordered to
such a good, but a counterfeit virtue. Even so, as
Augustine says {Contra Julian, iv.), the prudence of the
miser, whereby he devises various roads to gain, is no
true virtue; nor the miser's justice, whereby he scorns
the property of another through fear of severe punish-
ment; nor the miser's temperance, whereby he curbs his
desire for expensive pleasures; nor the miser's fortitude,
whereby as Horace says (Ep. i.) he braves the sea, crosses
mountains, and goes through fire, in order to avoid poverty.
If, on the other hand, this particular good be a true good,
for instance the welfare of the state, or the like, it will indeed
be a true virtue, imperfect, however, unless it be referred
to the final and perfect good. Accordingly no strictly
true virtue is possible without charity.

Reply Obj. i. The act of one lacking charity may be of
two kinds; one is in accordance with his lack of charity,
as when he does something that is referred to that whereby
he lacks charity. Such an act is always evil : thus Augus-
tine says [Contra Julian, iv.) that the actions which an
unbehever performs as an unbehever, are always sinful,

277 CHARITY, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF Q. 23. Art. 8

even when he clothes the naked, or does any hke thing,
and directs it to his unbehef as end.

There is, however, another act of one lacking charity,
not in accordance with his lack of charity, but in accord-
ance with his possession of some other gift of God, whether
faith, or hope, or even his natural good, which is not com-
pletely taken away by sin, as stated above (0. X., A. 4: 1. -II.,
Q. LXXXV., A. 2). In this way it is possible for an act,
without charity, to be generically good, but not perfectly
good, because it lacks its due order to the last end.

Reply Ohj. 2. Since the end is in practical matters, what
the principle is in speculative matters, just as there can
be no strictly true science, if a right estimate of the first
indemonstrable principle be lacking, so, there can be no
strictly true justice, or chastity, without that due ordering
to the end, which is effected by charity, however rightly
a man may be affected about other matters.

Reply Ohj. 3. Science and art of their very nature imply
a relation to some particular good, and not to the ultimate
good of human life, as do the moral virtues, which make
man good simply, as stated above (I. -II., Q. LVI., A. 3).
Hence the comparison fails.

Eighth Article,
whether charity is the form of the virtues ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth A rticle : —

Objection 1. It seems that charity is not the form of the
virtues. Because the form of a thing is either exemplar
or essential. Now charity is not the exemplar form of
the other virtues, since it would follow that the other
virtues are of the same species as charity: nor is it the
essential form of the other virtues, since then it would
not be distinct from them. Therefore it is in no way the
form of the virtues.

Obj. 2. Further, Charity is compared to the other virtues
as their root and foundation, according to Eph. iii. 17:
Rooted and founded in charity. Now a root or foundation

Q. 23. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 278

is not the form, but rather the matter of a thing, since it
is the tirst part in the making. Therefore charity is not
the form of the virtues.

Obj. 3. Further, Formal, final, and efficient causes do not
coincide with one another (Phys. ii.). Now charity is
called the end and the mother of the virtues. Therefore
it should not be called their form.

On the contrary, Ambrose says that charity is the form of
the virtues.

/ answer that, In morals the form of an act is taken chiefly
from the end. The reason of this is that the principle of
moral acts is the will, whose object and form, so to speak,
are the end. Now the form of an act always follows from
a form of the agent. Consequently, in morals, that which
gives an act its order to the end, must needs give the act
its form.

Now it is evident, in accordance with what has been
said (A. 7), that it is charity which directs the acts of
all other virtues to the last end, and which, consequently,
also gives the form to all other acts of virtue : and it is
precisely in this sense that charity is called the form of
the virtues, for these are called virtues in relation to
* informed ' acts.

Reply Obj. i. Charity is called the form of the other
virtues not as being their exemplar or their essential form,
but rather by way of efficient cause, in so far as it sets
the form on all, in the aforesaid manner.

Reply Obj. 2. Charity is compared to the foundation
or root in so far as all other virtues draw their sustenance
and nourishment therefrom, and not in the sense that the
foundation and root have the character of a material cause.

Reply Obj. 3. Charity is said to be the end of other virtues,
because it directs all other virtues to its own end. And
since a mother is one who conceives within herself and
by another, charity is called the mother of the other virtues, •
because, by commanding them, it conceives the acts of the
other virtues, by the desire of the last end.

QUESTION XXIV.

OF THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY.

{In Twelve Articles.)

We must now consider charity in relation to its subject,
under which head there are twelve points of inquiry:
(i) Whether charity is in the will as its subject ?
(2) Whether charity is caused in man by preceding acts
or by a Divine infusion ? (3) Whether it is infused accord-
ing to the capacity of our natural gifts ? (4) Whether
it increases in the person who has it ? (5) Whether it
increases by addition ? (6) Whether it increases by every
act ? (7) Whether it increases indefinitely ? (8) Whether
the charity of a wayfarer can be perfect ? (9) Of the
various degrees of charity. (10) Whether charity can
diminish ? (11) Whether charity can be lost after it has
been possessed ? (12) Whether it is lost through one
mortal sin ?

First Article,
whether the will is the subject of charity ?

We proceed thus to the First A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that the will is not the subject
of charity. For charity is a kind of love. Now, according
to the Philosopher (Top. ii.) love is in the concupiscible
part. Therefore charity is also in the concupiscible and
not in the will.

Ohj. 2. Further, Charity is the foremost of the virtues,
as stated above (O. XXIII., A. 6). But the reason is the
subject of virtue. Therefore it seems that charity is in the
reason and not in the will.

279

Q. 24. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 280

Obj. 3. Further, Charity extends to all human acts,
according to i Cor. xvi. 14: Let all your things he done in
charity. Now the principle of human acts is the free-will.
Therefore it seems that charity is chiefly in the free-will
as its subject, and not in the will.

On the contrary, The object of charity is the good, which
is also the object of the will. Therefore charity is in the
will as its subject.

/ answer that, Since, as stated in the First Part
(Q. LXXX., A. 2), the appetite is twofold, namely the
sensitive, and the intellective which is called the will,
the object of each is the good, but in different ways : for
the object of the sensitive appetite is a good apprehended
by sense, whereas the object of the intellective appetite
or will is good under the universal aspect of good, accord-
ing as it can be apprehended by the intellect. Now the
object of charity is not a sensible good, but the Divine
good which is known by the intellect alone. Therefore the
subject of charity is not the sensitive, but the intellective
appetite, i.e. the will.

Reply Obj. 1. The concupiscible is a part of the sensi-
tive, not of the intellective appetite, as proved in the First
Part (Q. LXXXL, A. 2) : wherefore the love which is in
the concupiscible, is the love of sensible good: nor can
the concupiscible reach to the Divine good which is an
intelligible good; the will alone can. Consequently the
concupiscible cannot be the subject of charity.

Reply Obj. 2. According to the Philosopher (DeAnima iii.),
the will also is in the reason: wherefore charity is not ex-
cluded from the reason through being in the will. Yet
charity is regulated, not by the reason, as human virtues
are, but by God's wisdom, and transcends the rule of human
reason, according to Eph. iii. 19: The charity of Christ,
which surpasseth all knowledge. Hence it is not in the
reason, either as its subject, like prudence is, or as its rule,
like justice and temperance are, but only by a certain
kinship of the will to the reason.

Reply Obj. 3. As stated in the First Part (Q. LXXXIIL,

28 1 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 2

A. 4), the free-will is not a distinct power from the will. Yet
charity is not in the will considered as free-will, the act of
which is to choose. For choice is of things directed to
the end, whereas the will is of the end itself (Ethic, iii.).
Hence charity, whose object is the last end, should be
described as residing in the will rather than in the free-
will.

Second Article,
whether charity is caused in us by infusion ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not caused in us by
infusion. For that which is common to all creatures, is
in man naturally. Now, according to Dionysius (Div.
Nom. iv.), the Divine good, which is the object of charity,
is for all an object of dilection and love. Therefore charity
is in us naturally, and not by infusion.

Obj. 2. Further, The more lovable a thing is, the easier
it is to love it. Now God is supremely lovable, since He
is supremely good. Therefore it is easier to love Him
than other things. But we need no infused habit in order
to love other things. Neither, therefore, do we need one
in order to love God.

Obj. 3. Further, The Apostle says (i Tim. i. 5): The
end of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, and
a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith. Now these three
have reference to human acts. Therefore charity is caused
in us from preceding acts, and not from infusion.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. v. 5) : The charity
of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who
is given to us.

I answer that, As stated above (O. XXIII., A. i), charity
is a friendship of man for God, founded upon the fellow-
ship of everlasting happiness. Now this fellowship is in
respect, not of natural, but of gratuitous gifts, for, according
to Rom. vi. 23, the grace of God is life everlasting : wherefore
charity itself surpasses our natural faculties. Now that
which surpasses the faculty of nature, cannot be natural

O. 24. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOT.OGTCA " 282

or acquired by the natural powers, since a natural effect
does not transcend its cause.

Therefore charity can be in us neither naturally, nor
through acquisition by the natural powers, but by the
infusion of the Holy (ihost. Who is the love of the Father
and the Son, and the participation of Whom in us is created
charity, as stated above (0. XXHI., A. 2).

Reply Obj. i. Dionysius is speaking of the love of God,
which is founded on the fellowship of natural goods, where-
fore it is in all naturally. On the other hand, charity is
founded on a supernatural fellowship, so that the com-
parison fails.

Reply Obj. 2. Just as God is supremely knowable in
Himself yet not to us, on account of a defect in our know-
ledge which depends on sensible things, so too, God is
supremely lovable in Himself, in as much as He is the
object of happiness. But He is not supremely lovable to
us in this way, on account of the inclination of our appetite
towards visible goods. Hence it is evident that for us to
love God above all things in this way, it is necessary that
charity be infused into our hearts.

Reply Obj. 3. When it is said that in us charity proceeds
from a pure heart, and r good conscience, and an unfeigned
faith, this must be referred to the act of charity which is
aroused by these things. — Or again, this is said because the
aforesaid acts dispose man to receive the infusion of charity.
The same remark applies to the saying of Augustine (Tract.
ix. in Ep. Joan.) : Fear leads to charity, and of a gloss on
Matth. i. 2: Faith begets hope, and hope charity.

Third Article.

whether charity is infused according to the
capacity of our natural gifts ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article :—
Objection i. It seems that charity is infused according
to the capacity of our nati^ral eifts. For it is written

283 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 3

(Matth. XXV. 15) that He gave to every one according to his
own virtue {l^ouciy- proper ability). Now, in man, none
but natural virtue precedes charity, since there is no virtue
without charity, as stated above (O. XXIII., A. 7). There-
fore (iod infuses charity into man according to the measure
of his natural virtue.

Obj. 2. Further, Among things ordained towards one
another, the second is proportionate to the first : thus we
find in natural things that the form is proportionate to
the matter, and in gratuitous gifts, that glory is proportion-
ate to grace. Now, since charity is a perfection of nature,
it is compared to the capacity of nature as second to first.
Therefore it seems that charity is infused according to the
capacity of nature.

Obj. 3. Further, Men and angels partake of happiness
according to the same measure, since happiness is alike
in both, according to Matth. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36.
Now charity and other gratuitous gifts are bestowed on
the angels, according to their natural capacity, as the
Master teaches (2 Sent., D. 3). Therefore the same ap-
parently applies to man.

On the contrary, It is written (John iii. 8): The Spirit
breatheth where He will, and (i Cor. xii. 11) : All these things
one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one accord-
ing as He will. Therefore charity is given, not according
to our natural capacity, but according as the Spirit wills
to distribute His gifts.

I answer that. The quantity of a thing depends on the
proper cause of that thing, since the more universal cause
produces a greater effect. Now, since charity surpasses
the proportion of human nature, as stated above (A. 2)
it depends, not on any natural virtue, but on the sole grace
of the Holy Ghost Who infuses charity. Wherefore the
quantity of charity depends neither on the condition of
nature nor on the capacity of natural virtue, but only on
the will of the Holy Ghost WTio divides His gifts according
as He will. Hence the Apostle says (Eph. iv. 7) : To every
one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gii'ing
of Christ,

Q. 24. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 284

Reply Ohj. I. The virtue in accordance with which
God gives His gifts to each one, is a disposition or previous
preparation or effort of the one who receives grace. But
the Holy Ghost forestalls even this disposition or effort, by
moving man's mind either more or less, according as He
will. Wherefore the Apostle says (Coloss. i. 12) : Who hath
made us worthy to he partakers of the lot of the saints in
light.

Reply Ohj. 2. The form does not surpass the proportion
of the matter, they are both of the same genus. In like
manner grace and glory are referred to the same genus,
for grace is nothing else than a beginning of glory in us.
But charity and nature do not belong to the same genus,
so that the comparison fails.

Reply Ohj. 3. The angel's is an intellectual nature, and
it is consistent with his condition that he should be borne
wholly whithersoever he is borne, as stated in the First
Part (Q. LXL, A. 6). Hence there was a greater effort
in the higher angels, both for good in those who persevered,
and for evil in those who fell, and consequently those of
the higher angels who remained steadfast became better
than the others, and those who fell became worse. But
man's is a rational nature, with which it is consistent
to be sometimes in potentiality and sometimes in act:
so that it is not necessarily borne wholly whithersoever it
is borne, and where there are greater natural gifts there may
be less effort, and vice versa. Thus the comparison fails.

Fourth Article,
whether charity can increase ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article .•—

Ohjection i. It seems that charity cannot increase. For
nothing increases save what has quantity. Now quantity
is twofold, namely dimensive and virtual. The former
does not befit charity which is a spiritual perfection, while
virtual quantity regards the objects in respect of which
charity does not increase, since the slightest charity loves

285 THE SUBJECT OE CHARn Y Q. 24. Art. 4

all that is to be loved out of charity. Therefore charity
does not increase.

Obj. 2. Further, That which consists in something
extreme receives no increase. But charity consists in
something extreme, being the greatest of the virtues, and
the supreme love of the greatest good. Therefore charity
cannot increase.

Obj. 3. Further, Increase is a kind of movement. There-
fore wherever there is increase there is movement, and
if there be increase of essence there is movement of essence.
Now there is no movement of essence save either by cor-
ruption or generation. Therefore charity cannot increase
essentially, unless it happen to be generated anew or
corrupted, which is unreasonable.

On the contrary, Augustine says [Ep. clxxxvi.) that charity
merits increase that by increase it may merit perfection.

I answer that, The charity of a wayfarer can increase.
For we are called wayfarers by reason of our being on the
way to God, Who is the last end of our happiness. In this
way we advance as we get* nigh to God, \\Tio is approached,
not by steps of the body but by the affections of the soul : *
and this approach is the result of charity, since it unites
man's mind to God. Consequently it is essential to the
charity of a wayfarer that it can increase, for if it could
not, all further advance along the way would cease. Hence
the Apostle calls charity the way, when he says (i Cor.
xii. 31) : / show unto vou yet a more excellent way.

Reply Obj. i. Charity is not subject to dimensive, but
only to virtual quantity: and the latter depends not only
on the number of objects, namely whether they be in greater
number or of greater excellence, but also on the intensity
of the act. namely whether a thing is loved more, or less;
it is in this way that the virtual quantity of charity
increases.

Reply Obj. 2. Charity consists in an extreme with regard
to its object, in so far as its object is the Supreme Good,
and from this it follows that charity is the most excellent

* S. Augustine, Tract, in Joan, xxxii.

Q. 24 Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 286

of the virtues. Yet not every charity consists in an
extreme, as regards the intensity of the act

Reply Obj. 3. Some have said that charity does not
increase in its essence, but only as to its radication in its
subject, or according to its fervour.

But these people did not know what they were talking
about. For since charity is an accident, its being is to
be in something. So that an essential increase of charity
means nothing else but that it is yet more in its subject,
which implies a greater radication in its subject. Further-
more charity is essentially a virtue ordained to act, so that
an essential increase of charity implies ability to produce
an act of more fervent love. Hence charity increases
essentially, not by beginning anew, or ceasing to be in its
subject, as the objection imagines, but by beginning to
be more and more in its subject.

Fifth Article,
whether charity increases by addition ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity increases by addition.
For just as increase may be in respect of bodily quantity,
so may it be according to virtual quantity. Now increase
in bodily quantity results from addition; for the Philo-
sopher says {De Gener. i.) that increase is addition to a
pre-existing magnitude. Therefore the increase of charity
which is according to virtual quantity is by addition.

Obj. 2. Further, Charity is a kind of spiritual light in
the soul, according to i John ii. 10: He that loveth his brother
abideth in the light. Now light increases in the air by addi-
tion; thus the light in a house increases when another
candle is lit. Therefore charity also increases in the soul
by addition.

Obj. 3. Further, The increase of charity is God's work,
even as the causing of it, according to 2 Cor. ix. 10: He will
increase the growth of the fruits of your justice. Now when
God first infuses charity. He puts something in the soul

287 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 5

that was not there before. Therefore also, when He
increases charity, He puts something there which was not
there before. Therefore charity increases by addition.

On the contrary, Charity is a simple form. Now nothing
greater results from the addition of one simple thing to
another, as proved in Phys. iii. and Met. iii. Therefore
charity does not increase by addition.

/ answer that, Every addition is of something to some-
thing else: so that in every addition we must at least pre-
suppose that the things added together are distinct before
the addition. Consequently if charity be added to charity,
the added charity must be presupposed as distinct from the
charity to which it is added, not necessarily by a distinction
of reality, but at least by a distinction of thought. For
God is able to increase a bodily quantity by adding a
magnitude which did not exist before, but was created at
that very moment; which magnitude, though not pre-
existent in reality, is nevertheless capable of being dis-
tinguished from the quantity to which it is added. Where-
fore if charity be added to charity we must presuppose
the distinction, at least logical, of the one charity from the
other.

Now distinction among forms is twofold, specific and
numeric. Specific distinction of habits follows diversity
of objects, while numeric distinction follows distinction
of subjects. Consequently a habit may receive increase
through extending to objects to which it did not extend
before: thus the science of geometry increases in one who
acquires knowledge of geometrical matters which he ignored
hitherto. But this cannot be said of charity, for even the
slightest charity extends to all that we have to love by
charity. Hence the addition which causes an increase of
charity cannot be understood, as though the added charity
were presupposed to be distinct specifically from that to
which it is added.

It follows therefore that if charity be added to charity,
we must presuppose a numerical distinction between them,
which follows a distinction of subjects: thus whiteness

Q. 24. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 288

receives an increase when one white thing is added to
another, although such an increase does not make a thing
whiter. This, however, does not sipply to the case in point,
since the subject of charity is none other than the rational
mind, so that suchlike an increase of charity could only
take place by one rational mind being added to another;
which is impossible. Moreover, even if it were possible,
the result would be a greater lover, but not a more loving
one. It follows, therefore, that charity can by no means
increase by the addition of charity to charity, as some have
held to be the case.

Accordingly charity increases only by its subject partaking
of charity more and more, i.e. by being more reduced to
its act and more subject thereto. For this is the proper
mode of increase in a form that is intensified, since the being
of such a form consists wholly in its adhering to its subject.
Consequently, since the magnitude of a thing follows on
its being, to say that a form is greater is the same as to say
that it is more in its subject, and not that another form is
added to it : for this would be the case if the form, of itself,
had any quantity, and not in comparison with its subject.
Therefore charity increases by being intensified in its
subject, and this is for charity to increase in its essence;
and not by charity being added to charity.

Reply Obj. i. Bodily quantity has something as quantity,
and something else, in so far as it is an accidental form.
As quantity, it is distinguishable in respect of position or
number, and in this way we have the increase of magnitude
by addition, as may be seen in animals. But in so far as
it is an accidental form, it is distinguishable only in respect
of its subject, and in this w^ay it has its proper increase,
like other accidental forms, by way of intensity in its subject,
for instance in things subject to rarefaction, as is proved
in Phys. iv. In like manner science, as a habit, has its
quantity from its objects, and accordingly it increases by
addition, when a man knows more things; and again, as
an accidental form, it has a certain quantity through being
in its subject, and in this way it increases in a man who

289 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 6

knows the same scientific truths with greater certainty
now than before. In the same way charity has a twofold
quantity; but with regard to that which it has from its
object, it does not increase, as stated above: hence it
follows that it increases solely by being intensified.

Reply Obj. 2. The addition of light to light can be under-
stood through the light being intensified in the air on account
of there being several luminaries giving light: but this
distinction does not apply to the case in point, since there is
but one luminary shedding forth the light of charity.

Reply Obj. 3. The infusion of charity denotes a change
to the state of having charity from the state of not having
it, so that something must needs come which was not there
before. On the other hand, the increase of charity denotes
a change to more having from less having, so that there is
need, not for anything to be there that was not there
before, but for something to be more there that previously
was less there. This is what God does when He increases
charity, that is He makes it to have a greater hold on the
soul, and the likeness of the Holy Ghost to be more perfectly
participated by the soul.

Sixth Article,
whether charity increases through every act of

CHARITY ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity increases through every
act of charity. For that which can do what is more,
can do what is less. But every act of charity can merit
everlasting life; and this is more than a simple addition of
charity, since it includes the perfection of charity. Much
more, therefore, does every act of charity increase charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Just as the habits of acquired virtue
are engendered by acts, so too an increase of charity is
caused by an act of charit3^ Now each virtuous act
conduces to the engendering of virtue. Therefore also each
virtuous act of charity conduces to the increase of charity.
II. ii. 1 19

Q. 24. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 290

Ohj. 3. Further, Gregory* says that to stand still in the
way to God is to go back. Now no man goes back when he is
moved by an act of charity. Therefore whoever is moved
by an act of charity goes forward in the way to God.
Therefore charity increases through every act of charity.

On the contrary, The effect does not surpass the power of
its cause. But an act of charity is sometimes done with
tepidity or slackness. Therefore it does, not conduce to
a more excellent charity, rather does it dispose one to a
lower degree.

/ answer that, The spiritual increase of charity is somewhat
like the increase of a body. Now bodily increase in animals
and plants is not a continuous movement, so that, to wit,
if a thing increase so much in so much time, it need to
increase proportionally in each part of that time, as happens.
in local movement; but for a certain space of time nature
works by disposing for the increase, without causing any
actual increase, and afterwards brings into effect that to
which it had disposed, by giving the animal or plant an
actual increase. In like manner charity does not actually
increase through every act of charity, but each act of
charity disposes to an increase of charity, in so far as one
act of charity makes man more ready to act again according
to charity, and this readiness increasing, man breaks out
into an act of more fervent love, and strives to advance in
charity, and then his charity increases actually.

Reply Ohj. i. Every act of charity merits everlasting
life, which, however, is not to be bestowed then and there,
but at its proper time. In like manner every act of charity
merits an increase of charity; yet this increase does not
take place at once, but when we strive for that increase.

Reply Ohj. 2. Even when an acquired virtue is being
engendered, each act does not complete the formation of
the virtue, but conduces towards that effect by disposing
to it, while the last act, which is the most perfect, and acts
in virtue of all those that preceded it, reduces the virtue
into act, just as when many drops hollow out a stone.

* S. Bernard, Serm. ij. in Festo Purif.

291 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 7

Reply Obj. 3. Man advances in the way to God, not merely
by actual increase of charity, but also by being disposed to
that increase.

Seventh Article,
whether charity increases indefinitely ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that charity does not increase in-
definitely. For every movement is towards some end and
term, as stated in Met. ii. But the increase of charity is
a movement. Therefore it tends to an end and term.
Therefore charity does not increase indefinitely.

Obj. 2. Further, No form surpasses the capacity of its
subject. But the capacity of the rational creature who is
the subject of charity is finite. Therefore charity cannot
increase indefinitely.

Obj. 3. Further, Every finite thing can, by continual
increase, attain to the quantity of another finite thing
however much greater, unless the amount of its increase
be ever less and less. Thus the Philosopher states [Phys. iii.)
that if we divide a line into an indefinite number of parts,
and take these parts away and add them indefinitely to
another line, we shall never arrive at any definite quantity
resulting from those two lines, viz. the one from which
we subtracted and the one to which we added what was
subtracted. But this does not occur in the case in point:
because there is no need for the second increase of charity
to be less than the first, since rather is it probable that it
would be equal or greater. As, therefore, the charity of
the blessed is something finite, if the charity of the way-
farer can increase indefinitely, it would follow that the
charity of the way can equal the charity of heaven; which
is absurd. Therefore the wayfarer's charity cannot in-
crease indefinitely.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Philip, iii. 12): Not
as though I had already attained, or were already perfect ;
but I follow after, if I may, by any means apprehend, on which
words a gloss says: Even if he has made great progress, let

Q. 24. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 292

none of the faithful say : ' Enough.' For whosoever says
this, leaves the road before coming to his destination. There-
fore the wayfarer's charity can ever increase more and
more.

/ answer that, A term to the increase of a form may be
fixed in three ways : first by reason of the form itself having
a fixed measure, and when this has been reached it is no
longer possible to go any further in that form, but if any
further advance is made, another form is attained. An
example of this is paleness, the bounds of which may, by
continual alteration, be passed, either so that whiteness
ensues, or so that blackness results. Secondly, on the part
of the agent, whose power does not extend to a further
increase of the form in its subject. Thirdly, on the part
of the subject, which is not capable of ulterior perfection.

Now, in none of these ways, is a limit imposed to the
increase of man's charity, while he is in the state of a way-
farer. For charity itself considered as such has no limit
to its increase, since it is a participation of the infinite
charity which is the Holy Ghost. In like manner the cause
of the increase of charity, viz. God, is possessed of infinite
power. Furthermore, on the part of its subject, no limit
to this increase can be determined, because whenever
charity increases, there is a corresponding increased ability
to receive a further increase. It is therefore evident that
it is not possible to fix any limits to the increase of charity
in this life.

Reply Ohj. i. The increase of charity is directed to an
end, which is not in this, but in a future life.

Reply Ohj. 2. The capacity of the rational creature is
increased by charity, because the heart is enlarged thereby,
according to 2 Cor. vi. 11: Our heart is enlarged ; so that
it still remains capable of receiving a further increase.

Reply Ohj. 3. This argument holds good in those things
which have the same kind of quantity, but not in those
which have different kinds: thus however much a line
may increase it does not reach the quantity of a superficies.
Now the quantity of a wayfarer's charity which follows

293 THE SUBJFXT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 8

the knowledge of faith, is not of the same kind as the
quantity of the charity of the blessed, which follows open
vision. Hence the argument does not prove.

Eighth Article,
whether charity can be perfect in this life ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — ■

Objection i. It seems that charity cannot be perfect in
this life. For this would have been the case with the
apostles before all others. Yet it was not so, since the
Apostle says (Philip, iii. 11): Not as though I had already
attained, or were already perfect. Therefore charity cannot
be perfect in this life.

Ohj. 2. Further, Augustine says [Qq. 83) that whatever
kindles charity quenches cupidity, hut where charity is perfect,
cupidity is done away altogether. But this cannot be in
this world, wherein it is impossible to live without sin,
according to i John i. 8: // we say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves. Now all sin arises from some inordinate
cupidity. Therefore charity cannot be perfect in this life.

Obj. 3. Further, What is already perfect cannot be per-
fected any more. But in this life charity can always
increase, as stated above (A. 7). Therefore charity cannot
be perfect in this life.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his commentary on
the First Canonical Epistle of John {Tract, v.): Charity is
perfected by being strengthened ; and when it has been brought
to perfection, it exclaims : ' I desire to be dissolved and to be
with Christ.' Now this is possible in this life, as in the case
of Paul. Therefore charity can be perfect in this life.

/ answer that. The perfection of charity may be under-
stood in two ways: first with regard to the object loved,
secondly with regard to the person who loves. With regard
to the object loved, charity is perfect, if the object be loved
as much as it is lovable. Now God is as lovable as He is
good, and His goodness is infinite, wherefore He is in-
finit(^ly lovable. But no creature can love Him infinitely

Q. 24. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 294

since all created power is finite. Consequently no creature's
charity can be perfect in this way ; the charity of God alone
can, whereby He loves Himself.

On the part of the person who loves, charity is perfect,
when he loves as much as he can. This happens in three
ways. First, so that a man's whole heart is always actually
borne towards God : this is the perfection of the charity of
heaven, and is not possible in this life, wherein, by reason of
the weakness of human life, it is impossible to think always
actually of God, and to be moved by love towards Him.
Secondly, so that man makes an earnest endeavour to give
his time to God and Divine things, while scorning other
things except in so far as the needs of the present life
demand. This is the perfection of charity that is possible
to a wayfarer; but it is not common to all who have charity.
Thirdly, so that a man gives his whole heart to God
habitually, viz. by neither thinking nor desiring anything
contrary to the love of God; and this perfection is common
to all who have charity.

Reply Obj. 1. The Apostle denies that he has the perfection
of heaven, wherefore a gloss on the same passage says that
he was a perfect wayfarer, hut had not yet achieved the per-
fection to which the way leads.

Reply Obj. 2. This is said on account of venial sins,
which are contrary, not to the habit, but to the act of charity :
hence they are incompatible, not with the perfection of
the way, but with that of heaven.

Reply Obj. 3. The perfection of the way is not perfection
simply, wherefore it can always increase.

Ninth Article.

whether charity is rightly distinguished into three
degrees, beginning, progress and perfection ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems unfitting to distinguish three
degrees of charity, be^nning, progress and perfection.
For there are many degr^^katween the beginning of charity

)e^nnm^
rel^j|at^

295 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 9

and its ultimate perfection. Therefore it is not right to
put only one.

Obj. 2. Further, Charity begins to progress as soon as
it begins to be. Therefore we ought not to distinguish
between charity as progressing and as beginning.

Obj. 3. Further, In this world, however perfect a man's
charity may be, it can increase, as stated above (A. 7).
Now for charity to increase is to progress. Therefore
perfect charity ought not to be distinguished from pro-
gressing charity : and so the aforesaid degrees are unsuitably
assigned to charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his Commentary on
the First Canonical Epistle of John [Tract, v.): As soon as
charity is born it takes food, which refers to beginners,
after taking food, it waxes strong, which refers to those who
are progressing, and when it has become strong it is perfected,
which refers to the perfect. Therefore there are three
degrees of charity.

/ answer that, The spiritual increase of charity may be
considered in respect of a certain likeness to the growth
of the human body. For although this latter growth
may be divided into many parts, yet it has certain fixed
divisions according to those particular actions or pursuits
to which man is brought by this same growth. Thus
we speak of a man being an infant until he has the use of
reason, after which we distinguish another state of man
wherein he begins to speak and to use his reason, while
there is again a third state, that of puberty, when he begins
to acquire the power of generation, and so on until he
arrives at perfection.

In like manner the divers degrees of charity are distin-
guished according to the different pursuits to which man
is brought by the increase of charity. For at first it is
incumbent on man to occupy himself chiefly with avoiding
sin and resisting his concupiscences, which move him in
opposition to charity: this concerns beginners, in whom
charity has to be fed or fostered lest it be destroyed : in
the second place man's chief pursuit is to aim at progress

Q. 24. Art. 10 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 296

in good, and this is the pursuit of the proficient, whose
chief aim is to strengthen their charity by adding to it:
while man's third pursuit is to aim chiefly at union with
and enjoyment of God: this belongs to the perfect who
desire to he dissolved and to he with Christ.

In like manner we observe in local motion that at first
there is withdrawal from one term, then approach to the
other term, and thirdly, rest in this term.

Reply Obj. i. All these distinct degrees which can be
discerned in the increase of charity, are comprised in the
aforesaid three, even as every division of continuous things
is included in these three, — the beginning, the middle,
and the end, as the Philosopher states (De Ccelo i.).

Reply Ohj. 2. Although those who are beginners in charity
may progress, yet the chief care that besets them is to resist
the sins which disturb them by their onslaught. After-
wards, however, when they come to feel this onslaught
less, they begin to tend to perfection with greater security;
yet with one hand doing the work, and with the other
holding the sword as related in 2 Esdr. iv. 17 about those
who built up Jerusalem.

Reply Ohj. 3. Even the perfect make progress in charity:
yet this is not their chief care, but their aim is principally
directed towards union with God. And though both the
beginner and the proficient seek this, yet their solicitude
is chiefly about other things, with the beginner, about
avoiding sin, with the proficient, about progrCvSsing in
virtue.

Tenth Article,
whether charity can decrease ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity can decrease. For
contraries by their nature affect the same subject. Now
increase and decrease are contraries. Since then charity
increases, as stated above (A. 4), it seems that it can also
decrease.

Obj. 2 Fiirther, Augustine, speaking to God, says

297 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 10

{Conf. X.): He loves Thee less, who loves aught beside Thee :
and (Qq. 83) he says that what kindles charity quenches
cupidity. From this it seems to follow that, on the contrary,
what arouses cupidity quenches charity. But cupidity,
whereby a man loves something beside God, can increase
in man. Therefore charity can decrease.

Obj. 3. Further, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii.)
(lod makes the just man, by justifying him, but in such
a way, that if the man turns away from God, he no longer
retains the effect of the Divine operation. From this we may
gather that when God preserves charity in man. He works
in the same way as when He first infuses charity into him.
Now at the first infusion of charity God infuses less charity
into him that prepares himself less. Therefore also in
preserving charity, He preserves less charity in him that
prepares himself less. Therefore charity can decrease.

On the contrary, In Scripture, charity is compared to
fire, according to Cant. viii. 6: The lamps thereof, i.e. of
charity, are fire and flames. Now fire ever mounts upward
so long as it lasts. Therefore as long as charity endures,
it can ascend, but cannot descend, i.e. decrease.

/ answer that, The quantity which charity has in com-
parison with its proper object, cannot decrease, even as
neither can it increase, as stated above (A. 4, ad 2).

Since, however, it increases in that quantity which it
has in comparison with its subject, here is the place to
consider whether it can decrease in this way. Now, if it
decrease, this must needs be either through an act, or by
the mere cessation from act. It is true that virtues acquired
through acts decrease and sometimes cease altogether
through cessation from act, as stated above (I. -II., Q. LIIL,
A. 3). Wlierefore the Philosopher says, in reference to
friendship '{Ethic, viii.) that want of intercourse, i.e. the
neglect to call upon or speak with one's friends, has destroyed
many a friendship. Now this is because the safe-keeping
of a thing depends on its cause, and the cause of human
\'irtue is a human act, so that when human acts cease, the
\irtur acquired thv^reby decreases and at last ceases alto-

Q. 24. Art. 10 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 298

gether. Yet this does not occur to charity, because it is
not the result of human acts, but is caused by God alone,
as stated above (A. 2). Hence it follows that even when
its act ceases, it does not for this reason decrease, or cease
altogether, unless the cessation involves a sin.

The consequence is that a decrease of charity cannot
be caused except either by God or by some sinful act.
Now no defect is caused in us by God, except by way of
punishment, in so far as He withdraws His grace in punish-
ment of sin. Hence He does not diminish charity except
by way of punishment: and this punishment is due on
account of sin.

It follows, therefore, that if charity decrease, the cause
of this decrease must be sin either effectively or by way
of merit. But mortal sin does not diminish charity,
in either of these ways, but destroys it entirely, both
effectively, because every mortal sin is contrary to charity,
as we shall state further on (A. 12), and by way of merit,
since when, by sinning mortally, a man acts against charity,
he deserves that God should withdraw charity from him.

In like manner, neither can venial sin diminish charity
either effectively or by way of merit. Not effectively,
because it does not touch charity, since charity is about
the last end, whereas venial sin is a disorder about things
directed to the end : and a man's love for the end is none
the less through his committing an inordinate act as regards
the things directed to the end. Thus sick people sometimes,
though they love health much, are irregular in keeping
to their diet: and thus again, in speculative sciences, the
false opinions that are derived from the principles, do not
diminish the certitude of the principles. So too, venial
sin does not merit a diminution of charity; for when a man
offends in a small matter he does not deserve to be mulcted
in a great matter. For God does not turn away from man,
more than man turns away from Him: wherefore he that
is out of order in respect of things directed to the end,
does not deserve to be mulcted in charity whereby he is
ordered to the last end.

299 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 10

The consequence is that charity can by no means be
diminished, if we speak of direct causaHty, yet whatever
disposes to its corruption may be said to conduce indirectly
to its diminution, and such are venial sins, or even the
cessation from the practice of works of charity.

Reply Ohj. i. Contraries affect the same subject when
that subject stands in equal relation to both. But charity
does not stand in equal relation to increase and decrease.
For it can have a cause of increase, but not of decrease, as
stated above. Hence the argument does not prove.

Reply Ohj. 2. Cupidity is twofold, one whereby man
places his end in creatures, and this kills charity altogether,
since it is its poison, as Augustine states [ibid.). This
makes us love God less (i.e. less than we ought to love Him
by charity), not indeed by diminishing charity but by
destroying it altogether. It is thus that we must under-
stand the saying: He loves Thee less, who loves aught beside
Thee, for he adds these words, — whichhe loveth not for Thee.
This does not apply to venial sin, but only to mortal
sin: since that which we love in venial sin, is loved for God's
sake habitually though not actually. — There is another
cupidity, that of venial sin, which is always diminished
by charity: and yet this cupidity cannot diminish charity,
for the reason given above.

Reply Obj. 3. A movement of the free-will is requisite
in the infusion of charity, as stated above (I. -II., Q. CXIIl.,
A. 3). Wherefore that which diminishes the intensity
of the free-will conduces dispositively to a diminution in
the charity to be infused. On the other hand, no move-
ment of the free-will is required for the safe-keepmg of
charity, else it would not remain in us while we sleep.
Hence charity does not decrease on account of an obstacle
on the part of the intensity of the free-will's movement.

Q 24. Art. I r THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 300

Eleventh Article,
whether we can lose charity when once we

HAVE IT ?

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we cannot lose charity when
once we have it. For if we lose it, this can only be through
sin. Now he who has charity cannot sin, for it is written
(i John iii. 9) : Whosoever is horn of God, committeth not
sin ; for His seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because
he is horn of God. But none save the children of God have
charity, for it is this which distinguishes the children of
God from the children of perdition, as Augustine says [De
Trin. xv.). Therefore he that has charity cannot lose it.

Obj. 2. Further, Augustine says {De Trin. viii.) that if
love be not true, it should not be called love. Now, as he says
again in a letter to Count Julian, charity which can fail was
never true.^ Therefore it was no charity at all. Therefore,
when once we have charity, we cannot lose it.

Obj. 3. Further, Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost
[In Evang. xxx.) that God's love works great things where
it is ; if it ceases to work it is not charity. Now no man
loses charity by doing great things. Therefore if charity
be there, it cannot be lost.

Obj. 4. Further, The free-will is not inclined to sin unless
by some motive for sinning. Now charity excludes all
motives for sinning, both self-love and cupidity, and all
such things. Therefore charity cannot be lost.

On the contrary. It is written (Apoc. ii. 4): / have some-
what against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity.

I answer that, The Holy Ghost dwells in us by charity, as
shown above (A. 2: QQ. XXIII., XXIV.). We can,
accordingly, consider charity in three ways: first on the
part of the Holy Ghost, Who moves the soul to love God,

* The quotation is from De Salutaribus Documentis ad quemdam
comitem, among the works of Paul of Friuh, more commonly known
as Paul the Deacon, a monk of Monte Cassius.

301 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY g. 24. Art. ii

and in tliis respect charity is incompatible with sin through
the power of the Holy Ghost, Who does unfailingly whatever
He wills to do. Hence it is impossible for these two things
to be true at the same time, — that the Holy (ihost should
will to move a certain man to an act of charity, and that
this man, by sinning, should lose charity. For the gift
of perseverance is reckoned among the blessings of Cod
whereby whoever is delivered, is most certainly delivered, as
Augustine says in his book on the Predestination of the
saints (De Bono Persev. xiv.).

Secondly charity may be considered as such, and thus it
is incapable of anything that is against its nature. Where-
fore charity cannot sin at all, even as neither can heat
cool, nor unrighteousness do good, as Augustine says (De
Serm. Dom. in monte ii.).

Thirdly charity can be considered on the part of its
subject, which is changeable on account of the free-will.
Moreover charity may be compared with this subject, both
from the general point of view of form in comparison with
matter, and from the specific point of view of habit as com-
pared with power. Now it is natural for a form to be in its
subject in such a way that it can be lost, when it does not
entirely fill the potentiality of matter: this is evident in
the forms of things generated and corrupted, because the
matter of such things receives one form in such a way,
that it retains the potentiality to another form, as though
its potentiality were not completely satisfied with the
one form. Hence the one form may be lost by the other
being received.. On the other hand the form of a celestial
body which entirely fills the potentiality of its matter, so
that the latter does not retain the potentiality to another
form, is in its subject inseparabty. Accordingly the charity
of the blessed, because it entirely fills the potentiality of the
rational mind, since every actual movement of that mind
is directed to Ciod, is possessed by its subject inseparably:
whereas the charity of the wayfarer does not so fill the
potentiality of its subject, because the latter is not always
actually directed to (iod: so tluit when it is not actually

g. 24. Art. II THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 302

directed to God, something may occur whereby charity
is lost.

It is proper to a habit to incline a power to act, and this
belongs to a habit, in so far as it makes whatever is suitable
to it, to seem good, and whatever is unsuitable, to seem
evil. For as the taste judges of savours according to its
disposition, even so does the human mind judge of things
to be done, according to its habitual disposition. Hence
the Philosopher says {Ethic, iii.) that such as a man is,
so does the end appear to him. Accordingly charity is in-
separable from its possessor, where that which pertains
to charity cannot appear otherwise than good, and that is
in heaven, where God is seen in His Essence, which is the
very essence of goodness. Therefore the charity of heaven
cannot be lost, whereas the charity of the way can, because
in this state God is not seen in His Essence, which is the
essence of goodness.

Reply Ohj. i. The passage quoted speaks from the point
of view of the power of the Holy Ghost, by Whose safe-
guarding, those whom He wills to move are rendered immune
from sin, as much as He wills.

Reply Ohj. 2. The charity which can fail by reason of
itself is no true charity; for this would be the case, were its
love given only for a time, and afterwards were to cease,
which would be inconsistent with true love. If, however,
charity be lost through the changeableness of the subject,
and against the purpose of charity included in its act, this
is not contrary to true charity.

Reply Ohj. 3. The love of God ever works great things
in its purpose, which is essential to charity; but it does not
always work great things in its act, on account of the
condition of its subject.

Reply Ohj. 4. Charity by reason of its act excludes every
motive for sinning. But it happens sometimes that charity
is not acting actually, and then it is possible for a motive
to intervene for sinning, and if we consent to this motive,
we lose charity.

303 THE SUBJECT (3F CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 12

Twelfth Article,
whether charity is lost through one mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity is not lost through one
mortal sin. For Origen says {Peri Archon i.): When a
man who has mounted to the stage of perfection, is satiated,
I do not think that he will become empty or fall away sud-
denly ; but he must needs do so gradually and by little and little.
But man falls away by losing charity. Therefore charity is
not lost through only one mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Pope Leo in a sermon on the Passion (ix.)
addresses Peter thus: Our Lord saw in thee not a conquered
faith, not an averted love, but constancy shaken. Tears
abounded where love never failed, and the words uttered in
trepidation were washed away by the fount of charity. From
this Bernard drew his assertion [De Amore Dei ii.) that
charity in. Peter was not quenched but cooled. But Peter
sinned mortally in denying Christ. Therefore charity is
not lost through one mortal sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Charity is stronger than an acquired
virtue. Now a habit of acquired virtue is not destroyed
by one contrary sinful act. Much less, therefore, is charity
destroyed by one contrary mortal sin.

Obj. 4. Further, Charity denotes love of God and our
neighbour. Now, seemingly, one may commit a mortal
sin, and yet retain the love of God and one's neighbour;
because an inordinate affection for things directed to the
end, does not remove the love for the end, as stated above
(A. 10). Therefore charity towards God can endure,
though there be a mortal sin through an inordinate affection
for some temporal good.

Obj. 5. Further, The object of a theological virtue is the
last end. Now the other theological virtues, namely faith
and hope, are not done away by one mortal sin, in fact
they remain though lifeless. Therefore charity can remain
without a form, even when a mortal sin has been committed.

Q. 24. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 304

On the contrary, By mortal sin man becomes deserving
of eternal death, according to Rom. vi. 23: The wages of
sin is death. On the other hand whoever has charity is
deserving of eternal life, for it is written (John xiv. 21):
He that loveth Me, shall he loved by My Father : and I will
love Him, and will manifest Myself to him, in which mani-
festation everlasting life consists, according to John xvii. 3 :
This is eternal life ; that they may know Thee the . . . true
God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent. Now no
man can be worthy, at the same time, of eternal life and of
eternal death. Therefore it is impossible for a man to have
charity with a mortal sin. Therefore charity is destroyed
by one mortal sin.

/ answer that, That one contrary is removed by the other
contrary supervening. Now every mortal sin is contrary
to charity by its very nature, which consists in man's loving
God above all things, and subjecting himself to Him
entirely, by referring all that is his to God. It is therefore
essential to charity that man should so love God as to wish
to submit to Him in all things, and always to follow the
rule of His commandments; since whatever is contrary to
His commandments is manifestly contrary to charity, and
therefore by its very nature is capable of destroying charity.

If indeed charity were an acquired habit dependent on
the power of its subject, it would not necessarily be removed
by one mortal sin, for act is directly contrary, not to habit
but to act. Now the endurance of a habit in its subject
does not require the endurance of its act, so that when a
contrary act supervenes, the acquired habit is not at once
done away. But charity, being an infused habit, depends
on the action of God Who infuses it, Who stands in relation
to the infusion and safe-keeping of charity, as the sun docs
to the diffusion of light in the air, as stated above (A. 10,
Ohj. 3). Consequently, just as the light would cease at
once in the air, were an obstacle placed to its being lit up
by the sun, even so charity ceases at once to be in the
soul through the placing of an obstacle to the outpouring
of r'harity by God mto the soul.

305 THE SUBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 24. Art. 12

Now it is evident that through every mortal sin which
is contrary to God's commandments, an obstacle is placed
to the outpouring of charity, since from the very fact that
a man chooses to prefer sin to (iod's friendship, which
requires that we should obey His will, it follows that the
habit of charity is lost at once through one mortal sin.
Hence Augustine says {Gen. ad lit. viii.) that man is en-
lightened by God's presence, but he is darkened at once by
God's absence, because distance from Him is effected not by
change of place but by aversion of the will.

Reply Obj. i. This saying of Origen may be understood,
in one way, that a man who is in the state of perfection,
does not suddenly go so far as to commit a mortal sin, but
is disposed thereto by some previous negligence, for which
reason venial sins are said to be dispositions to mortal sin,
as stated above (L-IL, Q. LXXXVHL, A. 3). Neverthe-
less he falls, and loses charity through the one mortal
sin if he commits it.

Since, however, he adds: If some slight slip should occur,
and he recover himself quickly, he does not appear to fall
altogether, we may reply in another way, that when he speaks
of a man being emptied and falling away altogether, he
means one who falls so as to sin through malice; and this
does not occur in a perfect man all at once.

Reply Obj. 2. Charity may be lost in two ways; first,
directly, by actual contempt, and, in this way, Peter did
not lose charity. Secondly, indirectly, when a sin is com-
mitted against charity, through some passion of desire
or fear; it was by sinning against charity in this way,
that Peter lost charity; yet he soon recovered it.

The Reply to the Third Objection is evident from what
has been said.

Reply Obj. 4. Not every inordinate affection for things
directed to the end, i.e. for created goods, constitutes a
mortal sin, but only such as is directly contrary to the Divine
will; and then the inordinate affection is contrary to
charity, as stated in this article (cf. O. XX., A. 3).

Reply Obj. 5. Charity denotes union with God. whereas
II. ii. I 20

Q. 24. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 306

faith and hope do not. Now every mortal sin consists in
aversion from (iod, as stated above (loc. cit.). Consequently
every mortal sin is contrary to charity, but not to faith or
hope, but only certain determinate sins, which destroy
the habit of faith or of hope, even as charity is destroyed
by every mortal sin. Hence it is evident that charity
cannot remain lifeless, since it is itself the ultimate form
of the virtues, by reason of its regarding God under the
aspect of last end, as stated above (O. XXIII. , A. 8).

QUESTION XXV.

OF THE OBJECT OF CHARITY.

{In Twelve Articles.)

We must now consider the object of charity; which con-
sideration will be twofold: (i) The things we ought to love
out of charity: (2) The order in which they ought to be
loved.

Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:
(i) Whether we should love God alone, out of charity, or
should we love our neighbour also ? (2) Whether charity
should be loved out of charity ? (3) WTiether irrational
creatures ought to be loved out of charity ? (4) Whether
one may love oneself out of charity ? (5) Whether one's
own body ? (6) WTiether sinners should be loved
out of charity ? (7) Whether sinners love themselves ?

(8) Whether we should love our enemies out of charity ?

(9) W'hether we are bound to show them tokens of friend-
ship ? (10) Whether we ought to love the angels out of
charity ? (11) WHiether we ought to love the demons ?
(12) How to enumerate the things we are bound to love
out of charity.

First Article.

whether the love of charity stops at god, or
extends to our neighbour ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the love of charity stops at
(lod and does not extend to our neighbour. For os we
owv (lod love, so do we owe Him fear, according to Dent.

Q. 25. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOCxICA " 308

X. 12: And now Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of
thee, hut that thou fear . . . and love Him ? Now the
fear with which we fear man, and which is called human
fear, is distinct from the fear with which we fear God, and
which is either servile or filial, as is evident from what has
been stated above (0. X., A. 2). Therefore also the love
with which we love God, is distinct from the love with which
we love om' neighbour.

Ohj. 2. Further, The Philosopher says [Ethic, vii.) that
to he loved is to he honoured. Now the honour due to God,
which is known as latria is distinct from the honour due
to a creature, and known as dulia. Therefore again the
love wherewith we love God, is distinct from that with
which we love our neighbour.

Ohj. 3. Further, Hope begets charity, as a gloss states
on Matth. i. 2. Now hope is so due to God that it is repre-
hensible to hope in man, according to Jerem. xvii. 5 :
Cursed he the man that trusteth in man. Therefore charity
is so due to God, as not to extend to our neighbour.

On the contrary, It is written (i John iv. 21) : This command-
ment we have from God, that he, who loveth God, love also
his hrother.

I answer that. As stated above (Q. XVII., A. 6: Q. XIX.,
A. 3: I. -II., Q. LIV., A. 3) habits are not differentiated
except their acts be of different species. For every act
of the one species belongs to the same habit. Now since
the species of an act is derived from its object, considered
under its formal aspect, it follows of necessity that it is
specifically the same act that tends to an aspect of the
object, and that tends to the object under that aspect:
thus it i^ specifically the same visual act whereby we see
the light, and whereby we see the colour under the aspect
of light.

Now the aspect under which our neighbour is to be
loved, is God, since what we ought to love in our neighbour
is that he may be in God. Hence it is clear that it is
specifically the same act whereby we love God, and whereby
we love our neighbour. Consequently the habit of charity

309 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. i

extends not only to the love of God, but also to the love
of our neighbour.

Reply Ohj. i. We may fear our neighbour, even as we
may love him, in two ways: first, on account of something
that is proper to him, as when a man fears a tyrant on account
of his cruelty, or loves him by reason of his own desire to
get something from him. Suchlike human fear is distinct
from the fear of God, and the same applies to love. Secondly,
we fear a man, or love him on account of what he has of
God; as when we fear the secular power by reason of its
exercising the ministry of God for the punishment of evil-
doers, and love it for its justice: suchlike fear of man is
not distinct from fear of God, as neither is suchlike
love.

Reply Ohj. 2. Love regards good in general, whereas
honour regards the honoured person's own good, for it is
given to a person in recognition of his own virtue. Hence
love is not differentiated specifically on account of the various
degrees of goodness in various persons, so long as it is
referred to one good common to all, whereas honour is
distinguished according to the good belonging to in-
dividuals. Consequently we love all our neighbours with
the same love of charity, in so far as they are referred to
one good common to them all, which is God; whereas we
give various honours to various people, according to each
one's own virtue, and likewise to God we give the singular
honour of latria on account of His singular virtue.

Reply Ohj. 3. It is wrong to hope in man as though he
were the principal author of salvation, but not, to hope in
man as helping us ministerially under God. In like manner
it would be wrong if a man loved his neighbour as though
he were his last end, but not, if he loved him for God's
sake; and this is what charity does.

g. 25. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 310

Second Article,
whether we should love charity out of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity need not be loved out
of charity. For the things to be loved out of charity are
contained in the two precepts of charity (Matth. xxii.
37-39) • and neither of them includes charity, since charity is
neither (iod nor our neighbour. Therefore charity need
not be loved out of charity.

Ohj. 2. Further, Charity is founded on the fellowship
of happiness, as stated above (Q. XXIII., A. i). But
charity cannot participate in happiness. Therefore charity
need not be loved out of charity.

Ohj. 3. Further, Charity is a kind of friendship, as stated
above {ibid.). But no man can have friendship for charity
or for an accident, since such things cannot return love for
love, which is essential to friendship, as stated in Ethic, viii.
Therefore charity need not be loved out of charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trinit. viii.): He that
loves his neighbour, must, in consequence, love love itself.
But we love our neighbour out of charity. Therefore it
follows that charity also is loved out of charity.

/ answer that, Charity is love. Now love, by reason of
the nature of the power whose act it is, is capable of reflect-
ing on itself; for since the object of the will is the universal
good, whatever has the aspect of good, can be the object
of an act of the will: and since to will is itself a good, man
can will himself to will. Even so the intellect, whose
object is the true, understands that it understands, because
this again is something true. Love, however, even by
reason of its own species, is capable of reflecting on itself,
because it is a spontaneous movement of the lover towards
the beloved, wherefore from the moment a man loves,
he loves himself to love.

Yet charity is not love simply, but has the nature of
friendship, as stated above (0. XXIII., A. i). Now by

311 THE OBJECT OE CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 3

friendship a thing is loved in two ways: first, as the friend
for whom we have friendship, and to whom we wish good
things: secondly, as the good which we wish to a friend.
It is in the latter and not in the former way that charity
is loved out of charity, because charity is the good which
we d'^sire for all those whom we love out of charity. The
same applies to happiness, and to the other virtues.

Reply Obj. i. God and our neighbour are those with
whom we are friends, but love of them includes the loving
of charity, since we love both God and our neighbour,
in so far as we love ourselves and our neighbour to love Ciod,
and this is to love charity.

Reply Obj. 2. Charity is itself the fellowship of the
spiritual life, whereby we arrive at happiness: hence it is
loved as the good which we desire for all whom we love
out of charity.

Reply Obj. 3. This argument considers friendship as
referred to those with whom we are friends.

Third Article.

whether irrational creatures also ought to
be loved out of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that irrational creatures also ought
to be loved out of charity. For it is chiefly by charity
that we are conformed to (iod. Now God loves irrational
creatures out of charity, for He loves all things that are
(Wis. xi. 25), and whatever He loves, He loves by Himself
Who is charity. Therefore we also should love irrational
creatures out of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Charity is referred to God principally,
and extends to other things as referable to God. Now just
as the rational creature is referable to God, in as much as
it bears the resemblance of image, so too, are the irrational
creatures, in as much as they bear the resemblance of a
trace.* Therefore charity extends also to irrational creatures.

* Cf. V. 1, o. XLV., A. 7.

Q. 25. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 312

Obj. 3. Further, Just as the object of charity is God,
so is the object of faith. Now faith extends to irrational
creatures, since we believe that heaven and earth were
created by God, that the fishes and birds were brought
forth out of the waters, and animals that walk, and plants,
out of the earth. Therefore charity extends also to ir-
rational creatures.

On the contrary, The love of charity extends to none but
God and our neighbour. But the word neighbour cannot
be extended to irrational creatures, since they have no
fellowship with man in the rational life. Therefore charity
does not extend to irrational creatures.

/ answer, that, According to what has been stated above
(Q. XIII., A. i) charity is a kind of friendship. Now the
love of friendship is twofold: first, there is the love for the
friend to whom our friendship is given, secondly, the love
for those good things which we desire for our friend. With
regard to the first, no irrational creature can be loved out
of charity; and for three reasons. Two of these reasons
refer in a general way to friendship, which cannot have an
irrational creature for its object: first because friendship
is towards one to whom we wish good things, while, properly
speaking, we cannot wish good things to an irrational
creature, because it is not competent, properly speaking,
to possess good, this being proper to the rational creature
which, through its free-will, is the master of its disposal
of the good it possesses. Hence the Philosopher says
{Phys. ii.) that we do not speak of good or evil befalling suchlike
things, except metaphorically. Secondly, because all friend-
ship is based on some fellowship in life; since nothing is so
proper to friendship as to live together, as the Philosopher
proves [Ethic, viii.). Now irrational creatures can have no
fellowship in human life which is regulated by reason.
Hence friendship with irrational creatures is impossible,
except metaphorically speaking. The third reason is
proper to charity, for charity is based on the fellowship
of everlasting happiness, to which the irrational creature
cannot attain. Therefore we cannot have the friendship
of charity towards an irrational creature.

313 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 4

Nevertheless we can love irrational creatures out of
charity, if we regard them as the good things that we
desire for others, in so far, to wit, as we wish for their
preservation, to God's honour and man's use ; thus too does
God love them out of charity.

Wherefore the Reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2. The likeness by way of trace does not confer
the capacity for everlasting life, whereas the likeness of
image does: and so the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 3. Faith can extend to all that is in any way
true, whereas the friendship of charity extends only to
such things as have a natural capacity for everlasting life ;
wherefore the comparison fails.

Fourth Article.

whether a man ought to love himself out
of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a man is not bound to love
himself out of charity. For Gregory says in a homily
{In Evang. xvii.) that there can be no charity between less
than two. Therefore no man has charity towards himself.^

Obj. 2. Further, Friendship, by its very nature, implies
mutual love and equality (Ethic, viii.), which cannot be
of one man towards himself. But charity is a kind of
friendship, as stated above (O. XXIII., A. i). Therefore
a man cannot have charity towards himself.

Obj. 3. Further, Anything relating to charity cannot be
blameworthy, since charity dealeth not perversely (i Cor
xiii. 4). Now a man deserves to be blamed for loving him-
self, since it is written (2 Tim. iii. i, 2): /;/ the last days
shall come dangerous times, men shall be lovers of themselves.
Therefore a man cannot love himself out of charity.

On the contrary, It is written (Levit. xix. 18): Thoii shall
love thy friend as thyself. Now we love our friends out of
charity. Therefore we should love ourselves too out of
charity.

Q. 25. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 314

/ answer that, Since charity is a kind of friendship, as
stated above (Q. XXIIL, A. i), we may consider charity
from two standpoints: first, under the general notion of
friendship, and in this way we must hold that, properly
speaking, a man is not a friend to himself, but something
more than a friend, since friendship implies union, for
Dionysius says {Div. Nom. iv.) that love is a unitive force,
whereas a man is one with himself which is more than being
united to another. Hence, just as unity is the principle
of union, so the love with which a man loves himself is
the form and root of friendship. For if we have friendship
with others it is because we do unto them as we do unto
ourselves, hence we read in Ethic, ix. that the origin of
friendly relations with others lies in our relations to ourselves.
Thus too with regard to principles we have something
greater than science, namely understanding.

Secondly, we may speak of charity in respect of its
specific nature, namely as denoting man's friendship with
God in the first place, and, consequently, with the things
of God, among which things is man himself who has charity.
Hence, among these other things which he loves out of
charity because they pertain to God, he loves also himself
out of charity.

Reply Obj. i. Gregory speaks there of charity under the
general notion of friendship: and the Second Objection is
to be taken in the same sense.

Reply Obj. 3. Those who love themselves are to be
blamed, in so far as they love themselves as regards their
sensitive nature, which they humour. This is not to love
oneself truly according to one's rational nature, so as to
desire for oneself the good things which pertain to the per-
fection of reason: and in this way chiefly it is through
charity that a man loves himself.

315 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY g. 25. Art. 3

FiFfH Article.

WHETHER A MAN OUGHT TO LOVE HIS BODY OUT

OF CHARITY ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that a man ought not U) lo\'e his
body out of charity. For we do not love one with whom
we are unwilHng to associate. But those who have charity
shun the society of the body, according to Rom. \'ii. 24:
Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? and Philip,
i. 23: Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.
Therefore our bodies are not to be loved out of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, The friendship of charity is based on
fellowship in the enjoyment of (iod. But the body can
have no share in that enjoyment. Therefore the body
is not to be loved out of charity.

Obj. 3. Further, Since charity is a kind of friendship it
is towards those who are capable of loving in return. But
our body cannot love us out of charity. Therefore it should
not be loved out of charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Doctr. Christ, i.)
that there are four things that we should love out of charity,
and among them he reckons our own body.

/ answer that, Our bodies can be considered in two ways,
first, in respect of their nature, secondly, in respect of the
corruption of sin and its punishment.

Now the nature of our body was created, not by an evil
principle, as the Manicheans pretend, but by (jod. Hence
we can use it for (jod's service, according to Rom. vi. 13:
Present . . . your members as instruments of justice unto
God. Consequently, out of the love of charity with which
We love (iod, we ought to love our bodies also; but we
ought not to love the evil effects of sin and the corruption
of punishment; we ought rather, by the desire of charity,
to long for the removal of such things.

Reply Obj. i. The Apostle did not shrink from the society
of his body, as regards the nature of the body, in fact in

Q. 25. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 316

this respect he was loth to be deprived thereof, according
to 2 Cor. V. 4: We would not be unclothed, but clothed over.
He did, however, wish to escape from the taint of con-
cupiscence, which remains in the body, and from the
corruption of the body which weighs down the soul, so
as to hinder it from seeing God. Hence he says expressly:
From the body of this death.

Reply Obj. 2. Although our bodies are unable to enjoy
God by knowing and loving Him, yet by the works which
we do through the body, we are able to attain to the perfect
knowledge of God. Hence from the enjoyment in the
soul there overflows a certain happiness into the body,
viz. the flush of health and incorruption, as Augustine states
{Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii.). Hence, since the body has, in
a fashion, a share of happiness, it can be loved with the
love of charity.

Reply Obj. 3. Mutual love is found in the friendship which
is for another, but not in that which a man has for himself,
either in respect of his soul, or in respect of his^body.

Sixth Article,
whether we ought to love sinners out of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we ought not to love sinners
out of charity. For it is written (Ps. cxviii. 113): / have
hated the unjust. But David had perfect charity. Therefore
sinners should be hated rather than loved, out of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Love is proved by deeds as Gregory says
in a homily for Pentecost [In Evang. xxx.). But good men
do no works of love for the unjust: on the contrary, they do
such as would appear to be works of hate, according to
Ps. c. 8: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the
land : and God commanded (Exod. xxii. 18) : Wizards thou
shall not suffer to live. Therefore sinners should not be
loved out of charity.

Obj. 3. Further, It is part of friendship that one should
desire and wish good things for one's friends Now the

317 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 6

saints, out of charity, desire evil things for the wicked,
according to Ps. ix. 18: May the wicked be turned into hell*
Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Obj. 4. Further, It is proper to friends to rejoice in,
and will the same things. Now charity does not make us
will what sinners will, nor to rejoice in what gives them
joy, but rather the contrary. Therefore sinners should not
be loved out of charity.

Obj. 5. Further, It is proper to friends to associate
together, according to Ethic, viii. But we ought not to
associate with sinners, according to 2 Cor. vi. 17: Go ye
out from among them. Therefore we should not love sinners
out of charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.)
that when it is said : ' Thou shall love thy neighbour,' it is
evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbour.
Now sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy
nature. Therefore we ought to love sinners out of charity.

/ answer that, Two things may be considered in the sinner,
his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which
he has from God, he has a capacity for happiness, on the
fellowship of which charity is based, as stated above
(A. 3: 0. XXIII., AA. I, 5), wherefore we ought to love
sinners, out of charity, in respect of their nature.

On the other hand their guilt is opposed to God, and is
an obstacle to happiness. Wherefore, in respect of their
guilt whereby they are opposed to God, all sinners are to
be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according
to Luke xiv. 26. For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner,
his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man
capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of
charity, for God's sake.

Reply Obj. i. The prophet hated the unjust, as such,
and the object of his hate was their injustice, which was their
evil. Such hatred is perfect, of which he himself says
(Ps. cxxxviii. 22): / have hated them with a perfect hatred.

* Douay and A.V., — The wicked shall be, etc. See Reply to this
Objection.

Q. 25. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 318

Now hatred of a person's evil is equivalent to love of
his good. Hence also this perfect hatred belongs to
charity.

Reply Ohj. 2. As the Philosopher observes (Ethic, ix.),
when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them
the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their
mending their ways, and we ought to help them more
readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they
lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to
friendship. When, however, they fall into very great
wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer
to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both
Divine and human laws command suchlike sinners to be
put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their
harming others than of their mending their ways. Never-
theless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for
the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of
which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual.
Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner,
if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and,
if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the
sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to
sin any more.

Reply Ohj. 3. Suchlike imprecations which we come across
in Holy Writ, may be understood in three ways : first, by way
of prediction, not by way of wish, so that the sense is: May
the wicked he, that is, The wicked shall he, turned into hell.
Secondly, by way of wish, yet so that the desire of the wisher
is not referred to the man's punishment, but to the justice
of the punisher, according to Ps. Ivii. 11: The just shall
rejoice when he shall see the revenge, since, according to
Wis. i. 13, not even God hath pleasure in the destruction
of the wicked (Vulg., — living) when He punishes them, but
He rejoices in His justice, according to Ps. x. 8: The Lord
is just and hath loved justice. Thirdly, so that this desire
is referred to the removal of the sin, and not to the punish-
ment itself, to the effect, namely, that the sin be destroyed,
but that the man may live*

319 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 7

Reply Obj. 4. We love sinners out of charity, not so as to
will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy,
but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in
what rejoices us. Hence it is written (Jerem. xv. 19) :
They shall be turned to thee, and thou shall not to be turned
to them.

Reply Obj. 5. The weak should avoid associating with
sinners, on account of the danger in which they stand of
being perverted by them. But it is commendable for the
perfect, of whose perversion there is no fear, to associate
with sinners that they may convert them. For thus did
Our Lord eat and drink with sinners as related by Matthew
(ix. 11-13). Yet all should avoid the society of sinners,
as regards fellowship in sin; in this sense it is written
(2 Cor. vi. 17): Go out from among them . . . and touch not
the unclean thing, i.e. by consenting to sin.

Seventh Article,
whether sinners love themselves ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that sinners love themselves. For
that which is the principle of sin, is most of all in the sinner.
Now love of self is the principle of sin, since Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xiv.) that it builds up the city of Babylon.
Therefore sinners most of all love themselves.

Obj. 2. Further, Sin does not destroy nature. Now it is
in keeping with nature that every man should love himself :
wherefore even irrational creatures naturally desire their
own good, for instance, the preservation of their being,
and so forth. Therefore sinners love themselves.

Obj. 3. Further, Good is belaved by all, as Dionysius
states (Div. Norn, iv^). Now many sinners reckon them-
selves to be good. Therefore many sinners love themselves.

On the contrary. It is written (Ps. x. 0) : He that loveth
iniquity, hateth his own soul.

1 (Uiswer that, Love of self is common to all. in one way:
in another way it is proper to the good; in a third way. it

Q. 25. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 320

is proper to the wicked. For it is common to all for each
one to love what he thinks himself to be. Now a man is
said to be a thing, in two ways: first, in respect of his sub-
stance and nature, and this way all think themselves to be
what they are, that is, composed of a soul and body. In
this way too, all men, both good and wicked, love themselves,
in so far as they love their own preservation.

Secondly, a man is said to be something in respect of
some predominance, as the sovereign of a state is spoken
of as being the state, and so, what the sovereign does, the
state is said to do. In this way, all do not think themselves
to be what they are. For the reasoning mind is the pre-
dominant part of man, while the sensitive and corporeal
nature takes the second place, the former of which the
Apostle calls the inward man, and the latter, the outward
man (2 Cor. iv. 16). Now the good look upon their rational
nature or the inward man as being the chief thing in them,
wherefore in this way they think themselves to be what
they are. On the other hand, the wicked reckon their
sensitive and corporeal nature, or the outward man, to
hold the first place. Wherefore, since they know not
themselves aright, they do not love themselves aright, but
love what they think themselves to be. But the good
know themselves truly, and therefore truly love themselves.

The Philosopher proves this from five things that are
proper to friendship. For in the first place, every friend
wishes his friend to be and to live; secondly, he desires good
things for him; thirdly, he does good things to him; fourthly,
he takes pleasure in his company; fifthly, he is of one mind
with him, rejoicing and sorrowing in almost the same
things. In this way the good love themselves, as to the
inward man, because they wish the preservation thereof
in its integrity, they desire good things for him, namely
spiritual goods, indeed they do their best to obtain them,
and they take pleasure in entering into their own hearts,
because they find there good thoughts in the present,
the memory of past good, and the hope of future good,
all of which are sources of pleasure, Likewise they experi-

321 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY g. 25. Art. 8

ence no clashing of wills, since their whole soul tends to
one thing.

On the other hand, the wicked have no wish to be pre-
served in the integrity of the inward man, nor do they desire
spiritual goods for him, nor do they work for that end,
nor do they take pleasure in their own company by entering
into their own hearts, because whatever they find there,
present, past and future, is evil and horrible; nor do they
agree with themselves, on account of the gnawings of
conscience, according to Ps. xlix. 21: / will reprove thee and
set before thy face.

In the same manner it may be shown that the wicked
love themselves, as regards the corruption of the outward
man, whereas the good do not love themselves thus.

Reply Obj. i. The love of self which is the principle of
sin is that which is proper to the wicked, and reaches to
the contempt of God, as stated in the passage quoted,
because the wicked so desire external goods as to despise
spiritual goods.

Reply Obj. 2. Although natural love is not altogether
forfeited by wicked men, yet it is perverted in them, as
explained above.

Reply Obj. 3. The wicked have some share of self-love,
in so far as they think themselves good. Yet such love
of self is not true but apparent : and even this is not possible
in those who are very wicked.

Eighth Article,
whether charity requires that we should love

our enemies ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity does not require us
to love our enemies. For Augustine says [Enchirid. Ixxiii.)
that this great good, namely, the love of our enemies, is not
so universal in its application, as the object of our petition
when we say : Forgive us our trespasses. Now no one is
forgiven sin without he have charity, because, according

II. ii. I 21

g. 25. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 322

to Prov. X. 12, charity cover eth all sins. Therefore charity
does not require that we should love our enemies.

Ohj. 2. Further, Charity does not do away with nature.
Now everything, even an irrational being, naturally hates
its contrary, as a lamb hates a wolf, and water fire. There-
fore charity does not make us love our enemies.

Ohj. 3. luirther, Charity doth nothing perversely (i Cor.
xiii. 4). Now it seems perverse to love one's enemies, as
it would be to hate one's friends: hence Joab upbraided
David by saying (2 Kings xix. 6): l^hou lovest them that
hate thee, and thou hatest them that love thee. Therefore
charity does not make us love our enemies.

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matth. v. 44) : Love your
enemies.

I answer that, Love of one's enemies may be understood
in three ways. First, as though we were to love our enemies
as such: this is perverse, and contrary to charity, since it
implies love of that which is evil in another.

Secondly love of one's enemies may mean that we love
them as to their nature, but in general: and in this sense
charity requires that we should love our enemies, namely, that
in loving God and our neighbour, we should not exclude
our enemies from the love given to our neighbour in general.

Thirdly love of one's enemies may be considered as speci-
ally directed to them, namely, that we should have a special
movement of love towards our enemies. Charity does not
require this absolutely, because it does not require that we
should have a special movement of love to every individual
man, since this would be impossible. Nevertheless charity
does require this, in respect of our being prepared in mind,
namely that we should be ready to love our enemies in-
dividually, if the necessity were to occur. That man
should actually do so, and love his enemy for God's sake,
without it being necessary for him to do so, belongs to the
perfection of charity. For since man loves his neighbour,
out of charity, for God's sake, the more he loves God, the
more does he put enmities aside and show love towards
Lis neighbour: thus if we loved a certain man very much,

323 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 9

we would love his children though they were unfriendly
towards us. This is the sense in which Augustine speaks
in the passage quoted in the First Objection, the Reply to
which is therefore evident.

Reply Ohj. 2. Everything naturally hates its contrary
as such. Now our enemies are contrary to us, as enemies,
wherefore this itself should be hateful to us, for their enmity
should displease us. They are not, however, contrary to
us, as men and capable of happiness: and it is as such that
we are bound to love them.

Reply Ohj. 3. It is wrong to love one's enemies as such:
charity does not do this, as stated above.

Ninth Article.

whether it is necessary for salvation that we should
show our enemies the signs and effects of love ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that charity demands of a man
to show his enemy the signs or effects of love. For it is
written (i John iii. 18) : Let us not love in word nor in tongue,
but in deed and in truth. Now a man loves in deed by
showing the one he loves signs and effects of love. There-
fore charity requires that a man show his enemies such
signs and effects of love.

Obj. 2. Further, Our Lord said in the same breath
(Matth. v. 44) : Love your enemies, and. Do good to them
that hate you. Now charity demands that we love our
enemies. Therefore it demands also that we should do
good to them.

Obj. 3. Further, Not only God but also our neighbour is
the object of charity. Now Gregory says in a homily for
Pentecost [In Evang. xxx.), that love of God cannot be idle,
for wherever it is it does great things, and if it ceases to work,
it is no longer love. Hence charity towards our neighbour
cannot be without producing works. But charity requiies
us to love our neighboiu" without exception, though he be

Q. 25. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 324

an enemy. Therefore charity requires us to show the signs
and effects of love towards our enemies.

On the contrary, A gloss on Matth. v. 44, Do good to them
that hate you, says: To do good to one's enemies is the height
of perfection.* Now charity does not require us to doWhat
which belongs to its perfection. Therefore charity does not
require us to show the signs and effects of love to our
enemies.

I answer that, The effects and signs of charity are
the result of inward love, and are in proportion with
it. Now it is absolutely necessary, for the fulfilment of
the precept, that we should inwardly love our enemies
in general, but not individually, except as regards the
mind being prepared to do so, as explained above
(A. 8).

We must accordingly apply this to the showing of the
effects and signs of love. For some of the signs and favours
of love are shown to our neighbours in general, as when
w^e pray for all the faithful, or for a whole people, or when
anyone bestows a favour on a whole community: and
the fulfilment of the precept requires that we should show
suchlike favours or signs of love towards our enemies.
For if we did not so, it would be a proof of vengeful spite,
and contrary to what is written (Levit. xix. 18): Seek not
revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens.

But there are other favours or signs of love, which one
shows to certain persons in particular : and it is not necessary
for salvation that we show our enemies suchlike favours
and signs of love, except as regards being ready in our
minds, for instance to come to their assistance in a case
of urgency, according to Prov. xxv. 21: // thy enemy he
hungry, give him to eat ; if he thirst, give him . . . drink.
Outside cases of urgency, to show suchlike favours to an
enemy belongs to the perfection of charity, whereby we
not only beware, as in duty bound, of being overcome by
evil, but also wish to overcome evil by good,! which belongs
to perfection : for then we not only beware of being drawn

* Augustine, — Enchirid. Ixxiii. f Roni. xii. 21.

325 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 10

into hatred on account of the hurt done to us, but pur-
pose to induce our enemy to love us on account of our
kindliness.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Tenth Article.

whether we ought to love the angels out
of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we are not bound to love the
angels out of charity. For, as Augustine says [De Doctr.
Christ, i.), charity is a twofold love, — the love of God and
of our neighbour. Now love of the angels is not contained
in the love of God, since they are created substances; nor
is it, seemingly, contained in the love of our neighbour,
since they do not belong with us to a common species.
Therefore we are not bound to love then! out of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Dumb animals have more in common with
us than the angels have, since they belong to the same
proximate genus as we do. But we have not charity
towards dumb animals, as stated above (A. 3). Neither,
therefore, have we towards the angels.

Obj. 3. Further, Nothing is so proper to friends as
companionship with one another (Ethic, viii.). But the
angels are not our companions; we cannot even see them.
Therefore we are unable to give them the friendship of
charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.):
// the name of neighbour is given either to those whom we
pity, or to those who pity us, it is evident that the precept
binding us to love our neighbour includes also the holy angels
from whom we receive many merciful favours.

I answer that, As stated above (0. XXIII., A. i), the
friendship of charity is founded upon the fellowship of
everlasting happiness, in which men share in common
with the angels. Vox it is written (Matth. xxii. 30) that

Q. 25. Art. ii THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 326

in the resurrection . . . men shall he as the .mgels of God
in heaven. It is therefore evident that the friendship of
charity extends also to the angels.

Reply Obj. i. Our neighbour is not only one who is
united to us in a common species, but also one who is united
to us by sharing in the blessings pertaining to everlasting
life, and it is on the latter fellowship that the friendshij)
of charity is founded.

Reply Obj. 2. Dumb animals are united to us in the
proximate genus, by reason of their sensitive nature;
whereas we are partakers of everlasting happiness, by reason
not of our sensitive nature but of our rational mind, wherein
we associate with the angels.

Reply Obj. 3. The companionship of the angels does not
consist in outward fellowship, which we have in respect
of our sensitive nature; it consists. in a fellowship of the
mind, imperfect indeed in this life, but perfect in heaven,
as stated above (Q. XXIII., A. i, ad 1).

Eleventh Article.

whether we are bound to love the demons out

of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we ought to love the demons
out of charity. For the angels are our neighbours by
reason of their fellowship with us in a rational mind. But
the demons also share in our fellowship thus, since natural
gifts, such as life and understanding, remain in them un-
impaired, as Dionysius states {Div. Nom. iv.). Therefore
we ought to love the demons out of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, The demons differ from the blessed angels
in the matter of sin, even as sinners frora just men. Now
the just man loves the sinner out of charity. Therefore
he ought to love the demons also out of charity.

Obj. 3. Further, We ought, out of charity, to love, as
being our neighbours, those from whom we receive favours,
as appears from the passage of Augustine quoted above

327 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. h

(A. 9), Now the demons are useful to us in many things,
for hy tempting us they work crowns for us, as Augustine
says [De Civ. Dei xi.). Therefore we ought to love the
demons out of charity.

On the contrary, It is written (Isa. xxviii. 18): Your league
with death shall he abolished, and your covenant with hell shall
not stand. Now the perfection of a peace and covenant is
through charity. Therefore we ought not to have charity
for the demons who live in hell and compass death.

/ answer that. As stated above (A. 6), in the sinner, we
are bound, out of charity, to love his nature, but to hate
his sin. But the name of demon is given to designate a
nature deformed by sin, wherefore demons should not be
loved out of charity.

Without however laying stress on the word, the question
as to whether the spirits called demons ought to be loved
out of charity, must be answered in accordance with the
statement made above (AA. 2, 3), that a thing may be
loved out of charity in two ways. First, a thing may be
loved as the person who is the object of friendship, and thus
we cannot have the friendship of charity towards the
demons. For it is an essential part of friendship that
one should be a well-wisher towards one's friend; and it is
impossible for us, out of charity, to desire the good of
everlasting life, to which charity is referred, for those
spirits whom God has condemned eternally, since this
would be in opposition to our charity towards God whereby
we approve of His justice.

Secondly, we love a thing as being that which we desire
to be enduring as another's good. In this way we love
irrational creatures out of charity, in as much as we wish
them to endure, to give glory to God and be useful to man,
as stated above (A. 3): and in this way too we can love
the nature of the demons even out of charity, in as much
as we desire those spirits to endure, as to their natural
gifts, unto God's glory.

Reply Ohj. i. The possession of everlasting happiness
is not impossible for the angelic mind as it is for the mind

Q 25. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 328

of a demon; consequently the friendship of charity which
is based on the fellowship of everlasting life, rather than
on the fellowship of nature, is possible towards the angels,
but not towards the demons.

Reply Ohj. 2. In this life, men who are in sin retain the
possibility of obtaining everlasting happiness: not so those
who are lost in hell, who, in this respect, are in the same
case as the demons.

Reply Ohj. 3. That the demons are useful to us is due not
to their intention but to the ordering of Divine providence ;
hence this leads us to be friends, not with them, but with
God, Who turns their perverse intention to our profit.

Twelfth Article.

whether four things are rightly reckoned as to be
loved out of charity, viz. god, our neighbour,
our body and ourselves ?

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that these four things are not
rightly reckoned as to be loved out of charity, to wit God,
our neighbour, our body, and ourselves. For, as Augustine
states {Tract, super Joan. Ixxxiii.), he that loveth not God,
loveth not himself. Hence love of oneself is included in
the love of God. Therefore love of oneself is not distinct
from the love of God.

Ohj. 2. Further, A part ought not to be condivided with
the whole. But our body is part of ourselves. Therefore
it ought not to be condivided with ourselves as a distinct
object of love.

Ohj. 3. Further, Just as a man has a body, so has his
neighbour. Since then the love with which a man loves
his neighbour, is distinct from the love with which a man
loves himself, so the love with which a man loves his neigh-
bour's body, ought to be distinct from the love with which
he loves his own body. Therefore these four things are
not rightly distinguished as objects to be loved out of
charity.

329 THE OBJECT OF CHARITY Q. 25. Art. 12

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Docir. Christ, i.):
There are four things to be loved ; one which is above us,
namely God, another, which is ourselves, a third which is
nigh to us, namely our neighbour, and a fourth which is
beneath us, namely our own body.

/ answer that. As stated above (Q. XXIII. , AA. i, 5),
the friendship of charity is based on the fellowship of
happiness. Now, in this fellowship, one thing is considered
as the principle from which happiness flows, namely God;
a second is that which directly partakes of happiness,
namely men and angels; a third is a thing to which happi-
ness comes by a kind of overflow, namely the human body.

Now the source from which happiness flows is lovable
by reason of its being the cause of happiness: that which
is a partaker of happiness, can be an object of love for two
reasons, either through being identified with ourselves, or
through being associated with us in partaking of happiness,
and in this respect, there are two things to be loved out of
charity, in as much as man loves both himself and his
neighbour.

Reply Obj. i. The different relations between a lover and
the various things loved makes a different kind of lovable-
ness. Accordingly, since the relation between the human
lover and God is different from his relation to himself, these
two are reckoned as distinct objects of love, for the love
of the one is the cause of the love of the other, so that the
former love being removed the latter is taken away.

Reply Obj. 2. The subject of charity is the rational
mind that can be capable of obtaining happiness, to which
the body does not reach directly, but only by a kind of
overflow. Hence, by his reasonable mind which holds
the first place in him, man, out of charity, loves himself
in one way, and his own body in another.

Reply Obj. 3. Man loves his neighbour, both as to his
soul and as to his body, by reason of a certain fellowship
in happiness. Wherefore, on the part of his neighbour,
there is only one reason for loving him; and our neighbour's
body is not reckoned as a special object of love.

QUESTION XXVI .

OF THIv ORDER OF CHARITY.

{In Thirteen Articles.)

We must now consider the order of charity, under which
head there are thirteen points of inquiry: (i) Whether
there is an. order in charity ? (2) Whether man ought to
love God more than his neighbour ? (3) Whether more
than himself ? (4) Whether he ought to love himself
more than his neighbour ? (5) Whether man ought to
love his neighbour more than his own body ? (6) Whether
he ought to love one neighbour more than another ?
(7) Whether he ought to love more, a neighbour who is better,
or one who is more closely united to him ? (8) Whether
he ought to love more, one who is akin to him by blood, or
one who is united to him by other ties ? (9) Whether,
out of charity, a man ought to love his son more than his
father ? (10) Whether he ought to love his mother more
than his father ? (11) Whether he ought to love his wife
more than his father or mother ? (12) Whether we ought
to love those who are kind to us more than those whom
we are kind to ? (13) Whether the order of charity
endures in heaven ?

First Article,
whether there is order in charity ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that there is no order in charity.
For charity is a virtue. But no order is assigned to the
other virtues. Neither, therefore, should any order be
assigned to charity.

330

331 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. i

Ohj. 2. Further, Just as the object of faith is the F'irst
Truth, so is the object of charity the Sovereign Oood.
Now no order is appointed for faith, but all things are be-
lieved equally. Neither, therefore, ought there to be any
order in charity.

Ohj. 3. inirthcr, Charity is in the will: when^as ordering
belongs, not to the will, but to the reason. Therefore no
order should be ascribed to charity.

On the contrary, It is written (Cant. ii. 4): He brought me
into the cellar of wine, he set in order charity in me.

I answer that, As the Philosopher says [Met. v.), the
terms before and after are used in reference to some principle.
Now order implies that certain things are, in some way,
before or after. Hence wherever there is a principle, there
must needs be also order of some kind. But it has been
said above (Q. XXIII., A. i: Q. XXV., A. 12) that the love
of charity tends to (lod as to the principle of happiness,
on the fellowship of which the friendship of charity is based.
Consequently there must needs be some order in things
loved out of charity, which order is in reference to the first
principle of that love, which is God.

Reply Obj. i. Charity tends towards the last end con-
sidered as last end: and this does not apply to any other
virtue, as stated above (O. XXIII., A. 6). Now the end
has the character of principle in matters of appetite and
action, as was shown above (0. XXIII., A. j, ad z: I. -II.,
A. 1, ad i). Wherefore charity, above all, implies relation
to the First Principle, and consequently, in charity above
all, we find an order in reference to the First Principle.

Reply Obj. 2. Faith pertains to the cognitive power,
whose operation depends on the thing known being in the
knower. On the other hand, charity is in an appetitive
power, whose operation consists in the soul tending to
things themselves. Now order is to be found in things
themselves, and flows from them into our knowledge.
Hence order is more appropriate to charity than to
faith.

And yet there is a certain order in faith, in so far as it

Q. 26. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 332

is chiefly about God, and secondarily about things referred
to God.

Reply Ohj. 3. Order belongs to reason as the faculty
that orders, and to the appetitive power as to the faculty
which is ordered. It is in this way that order is stated
to be in charity.

Second Article.

whether god ought to be loved more than our

neighbour ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that God ought not to be loved
more than our neighbour. For it is written (i John iv. 20) :
He that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love
God, Whom he seeth not ? Whence it seems to follow that
the more a thing is visible the more lovable it is, since
loving begins with seeing, according to Ethic, ix. Now
God is less visible than our neighbour. Therefore He is
less lovable, out of charity, than our neighbour.

Obj. 2. Further, Likeness causes love, according to
Ecclus. xiii. 19: Every beast loveth its like. Now man bears
more likeness to his neighbour than to God. Therefore
man loves his neighbour, out of charity, more than he loves
God.

Obj. 3. Further, What charity loves in a neighbour, is
God, according to Augustine [De Doctr. Christ, i.). Now
God is not greater in Himself than He is in our neighbour.
Therefore He is not more to be loved in Himself than in
our neighbour. Therefore we ought not to love God more
than our neighbour.

On the contrary, A thing ought to be loved more, if others
ought to be hated on its account. Now we ought to hate
our neighbour for God's sake, if, to wit, he leads us astray
from God, according to Luke xiv. 26 : // any man come to
Me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters . . . he cannot be My disciple.

333 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 2

Therefore we ought to love God, out of charity, more than
our neighbour.

/ answer that, Each kind of friendship regards chiefly the
subject in which we chiefly find the good on the fellowship of
which that friendship is based : thus civil friendship regards
chiefly the ruler of the state, on whom the entire common
good of the state depends; hence to him before all, the
citizens owe fidelity and "obedience. Now the friendship
of charity is based on the fellowship of happiness, which
consists e.sentially in God, as the First Principle, whence
it flows to all who are capable of happiness.

Therefore God ought to be loved chiefly and before all
out of charity: for He is loved as the cause of happiness,
whereas our neighbour is loved as receiving together with
us a share of happiness from Him.

Reply Obj. i. A thing is a cause of love in two ways:
first, as being the reason for loving. In this way good is
the cause of love, since each thing is loved according to its
measure of goodness. Secondly, a thing causes love, as
being a way to acquire love. It is in this way that seeing
is the cause of loving, not as though a thing were lovable
according as it is visible, but because by seeing a thing we
are led to love it. Hence it does not follow that what is
more visible is more lovable, but that as an object of love
we meet with it before others: and that is the sense of the
Apostle's argument. For, since our neighbour is more
visible to us, he is the first lovable object we meet with,
because the soul learns, from those things it knows, to love
what it knows not, as Gregory says in a homily (In Evang. xi.).
Hence it can be argued that, if any man loves not his
neighbour, neither does he love God, not because his neigh-
bour is more lovable, but because he is the first thing to
demand our love: and God is more lovable by reason of
His greater goodness.

Reply Obj. 2. The likeness we have to God precedes and
causes the likeness w^e have to our neighbour: because
from the \'ery fact that we share along with our neighbour
in something received from God, we become like to our

g. 26. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 334

neighbour. Hence by reason of this likeness we ought to
love Ciod more than we love our neighbour.

Reply Obj. 3. Considered in His substance, God is equally
in all, in whomsoever He may be, for He is not lessened by
being in anything. And yet our neighbour does not
possess God's goodness equally with God, for God has it
essentially, and our neighbour by participation.

I ] Third Article.

WHETHER, OUT OF CHARITY, MAN IS BOUND TO LOVE
GOD MORE THAN HIMSELF ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that man is not bound, out of charity,
to love God more than himself. For the Philosopher
says [Ethic, ix.) that a man' s friendly relations with others
arise from his friendly relations with himself. Now the
cause is stronger than its effect. Therefore man's friend-
ship towards himself is greater than his friendship for
anyone else. Therefore he ought to love himself more
than God.

Obj. 2. Further, One loves a thing in so far as it is one's
own good. Now the reason for loving a thing is more
loved than the thing itself which is loved for that reason,
even as the principles which are the reason for knowing
a thing are more known. Therefore man loves himself
more than any other good loved by him. Therefore he
does not love God more than himself.

Obj. 3. Further, A man loves God as much as he loves
to enjoy God. But a man loves himself as much as he
loves to enjoy God; since this is the highest good a np.n
can wish for himself. Therefore man is not bound, out
of charity, to love God more than himself. '

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Doctr. Christ, i.):
If thou oughtest to love thyself, not for thy own sake, but for
the sake of Him in Whom is the rightest end of thy love, let
no other man take offence if him also thou lovest for God's

335 'IHE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 20. Aur. 3

sake. Now the cause of a thing being such is yet more so.
Therefore man ought to love God more than himself.

/ answer that, The good we receive from God is twofold,
the good of nature, and the good of grace. Now the fellow-
ship of natural goods bestowed on us by God is the founda-
tion of natural love, in virtue of which not only man, so
long as his nature remains unimpaired, loves Ciod above
all things and more than himself, but also every single
creature, each in its own way, i.e. either by an intellectual,
or by a rational, or by an animal, or at least by a natural
love, as stones do, for instance, and other things bereft
of knowledge, because each part naturally loves the common
good of the whole more than its own particular good.
This is evidenced by its operation, since the principal
inclination of each part is towards common action conducive
to the good of the whole. It may also be seen in civic
virtues whereby sometimes the citizens suffer damage even
to their own property and persons for the sake of the common
good. Wherefore much more is this realized with regard
to the friendship of charity which is based on the fellowship
of the gifts of grace.

Therefore man ought, out of charity, to love God, Who
is the common good of all, more than himself : since happiness
is in Ciod as in the universal and fountain principle of all
who are able to have a share of that happiness.

Reply Obj. i. The Philosopher is speaking of friendly
relations towards another person in whom the good, which
is the object of friendship, resides in some restricted way;
and not of friendly relations with another in whom the
aforesaid good resides in totality.

Reply Obj. 2. The part does indeed love the good of the
whole, as becomes a part, not however so as to refer the
good of the whole to itself, but rather itself to the good of
the whole.

Reply Obj. 3. That a man wishes to enjoy God pertains
to that love of God which is love of concupiscence. Now
we love God with the love of friendship more than with
the loN'e of concupiscence, because the Divine good is

Q. 26. Art 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 336

greater in itself, than our share of good in enjoying Him.
Hence, out of charity, man simply loves God more than
himself.

Fourth Article.

whether out of charity, man ought to love
himself more than his neighbour ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i . It seems that a man ought not, out of charity,
to love himself more than his neighbour. For the principal
object of charity is God, as stated above (A. 2: Q. XXV.,
AA. I, 12). Now sometimes our neighbour is more closely
united to God than we are ourselves. Therefore we ought
to love such a one more than ourselves.

Ohj. 2. Further, The more we love a person, the more
we avoid injuring him. Now a man, out of charity, submits
to injury for his neighbour's sake, according to Prov. xii. 26 :
He that neglecteth a loss for the sake of a friend, is just. There-
fore a man ought, out of charity, to love his neighbour
more than himself.

Obj. 3. Further, It is written (i Cor. xiii. 5) that charity
seeketh not its own. Now the thing we love most is the one
whose good we seek most. Therefore a man does not,
out of charity, love himself more than his neighbour.

On the contrary, It is written (Lev. xix. 18, Matth.
xxii. 39): Thou shall love thy neighbour (Lev. loc. cit., —
friend) as thyself. Whence it seems to follow that man's
love for himself is the model of his love for another. But
the model exceeds the copy. Therefore, out of charity,
a man ought to love himself more than his neighbour.

/ answer that, There are two things in man, his spiritual
nature and his corporeal nature. And a man is said to
love himself by reason of his loving himself with regard to
his spiritual nature, as stated above (Q. XXV., A. 7):
so that accordingly, a man ought, out of charity, to love
himself more than he loves any other person.

This is evident from the very reason for loving: since,

337 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 4

as stated above (Q. XXV., AA. i, 12), God is loved as the j
principle of good, on which the love of charity is founded;
j while man, out of charity, loves himself by reason of his
' being a partaker of the aforesaid good, and loves his
neighbour by reason of his fellowship in that good. Now
; fellowship is a reason for love according to a certain
union in relation to (lod. f» Wherefore just as unity sur-
passes union, the fact that man himself has a share of
the Divine good, is a more potent reason for loving
than that another should be a partner with him in that
share. Therefore man, out of charity, ought to love
himself more than his neighbour: in sign whereof, a man
ought not to give way to any evil of sin, which counteracts
his share of happiness, not even that he may free his
neighbour from sin.

Reply Obj. i. The love of charity takes its quantity not
only from its object which is God, but also from the lover,
who is the man that has charity, even as the quantity of
any action depends in some way on the subject. Wherefore,
though a better neighbour is nearer to God, yet because
he is not as near to the man who has charity, as this man
is to himself, it does not follow that a man is bound to love
his neighbour more than himself.

Reply Obj. 2. A man ought to bear bodily injury for his
friend's sake, and precisely in so doing he loves himself
more as regards his spiritual mind, because it pertains to
the perfection of virtue, which is a good of the mind. In
spiritual matters, however, man ought not to suffer injury
by sinning, in order to free his neighbour from sin, as
stated above.

Reply Obj. 3. As Augustine says in his Rule, the saying,
' charity seeks not her own,' means that it prefers the common
to the private good. Now the common good is always more
lovable to the individual than his private good, even as
the good of the whole is more lovable to the part, than the
latter's own partial good, as stated abcn'o (A. 3).

II. U. I

Q. 26. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 338

Fifth Article.

whether a man ought to love his neighbour
more than his own body ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a man is not bound to love
his neighbour more than his own body. For his neighbour
includes his neighbour's body. If therefore a man ought
to love his neighbour more than his own body, it follows
that he ought to love his neighbour's body more than his own.

Ohj. 2. Further, A man ought to love his own soul more
than his neighbour's, as stated above (A. 4). Now a man's
own body is nearer to his soul than his neighbour. Therefore
we ought to love our body more than our neighbour.

Ohj. 3. Further, A man imperils that which he loves less
for the sake of what he loves more. Now every man is
not bound to imperil his own body for his neighbour's
safety : this belongs to the perfect, according to John xv. 13 :
Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his
life for his friends. Therefore a man is not bound, out of
charity, to love his neighbour more than his own body.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.)
that we ought to love our neighbour more than our own body.

I answer that. Out of charity we ought to love more that
which has more fully the reason for being loved out of
charity, as stated above (A. 2: Q. XXV., A. 12). Now
fellowship in the full participation of happiness which is the
reason for loving one's neighbour, is a greater reason for
loving, than the participation of happiness by way of
overflow, which is the reason for loving one's own body.
Therefore, as regards the welfare of the soul we ought to
love our neighbour more than our own body.

Reply Ohj. i. According to the Philosopher {Ethic, ix.)
a tiling seems to be that which is predominant in it : so that
when we say that we ought to love our neighbour more
than our own body, this refers to his soul, which is his
predominant part.

339 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 6

Reply Ohj. 2. Our body is nearer to our soul than our
neighbour, as regards the constitution of our own nature:
but as regards the participation of happiness, our neighbour's
soul is more closely associated with our own soul, than even
our own body is.

Reply Ohj. 3. Every man is immediately concerned with
the care of his own body, but not with his neighbour's
welfare, except perhaps in cases of urgency : wherefore charity
does not necessarily require a man to imperil his own body
for his neighbour's welfare, except in a case where he is
under obligation to do so; and if a man of his own accord
offer himself for that purpose, this belongs to the perfection
of charity.

Sixth Article.

whether we ought to love one neighbour more

than another ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that w^e ought not to love one
neighbour more than another. For Augustine says {De
Doctr. Christ, i.): One ought to love all men equally. Since,
however, one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those
chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance,
by a kind of chance, are more closely united to us. Therefore
one neighbour ought not to be loved more than another.

Obj. 2. Further, Where there is one and the same reason
for loving several, there should be no inequality of love.
Now there is one and the same reason for loving all one's
neighbours, which reason is (lod, as Augustine states
[De Doctr. Christ, i.). Therefore we ought to love all our
neighbours equally.

Obj. 3. Further, To love a man is to wish him good things,
as the Philosopher states [Rhet. ii.). Now to all our neigh-
bours we wish an equal good, viz. everlasting life. There-
fore we ought to love all our neighbours equally.

On the contrary, One's obligation to love a person is pro-
portionate to the gravity of the sin one commits in acting

O. 26. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 340

against that love. Now it is a more grievous sin to act
against the love of certain neighbours, than against the love
of others. Hence the commandment (Lev. xx. 9), —
He that curseth his father or mother, dying let him die, which
does not apply to those who cursed others than the above.
Therefore we ought to love some neighbours more than
others.

/ answer that, There have been two opinions on this
question: for some have said that we ought, out of charity, to
love all our neighbours equally, as regards our affection,
but not as regards the outward effect. They held that the
order of love is to be understood as applying to outward
favours, which we ought to confer on those who are
connected with us in preference to those who are un-
connected, and not to the inward affection, which ought to
be given equally to all including our enemies.

But this is unreasonable. For the affection of charity,
which is the inclination of grace, is not less orderly than the
natural appetite, which is the inclination of nature, for
both inclinations flow from Divine wisdom. Now we
observe in the physical order that the natural inclination
in each thing is proportionate to the act or movement that
is becoming to the nature of that thing: thus in earth the
inclination of gravity is greater than in water, because
it is becoming to earth to be beneath water. Consequently
the inclination also of grace which is the effect of charity,
must needs be proportionate to those actions which have
to be performed outwardly, so that, to wit, the affection
of our charity be more intense towards those to whom we
ought to behave with greater kindness.

We must, therefore, say that, even as regards the affection
we ought to love one neighbour more than another. The
reason is that, since the principle of love is God, and the
person who loves, it must needs be that the affection of
love increases in proportion to the nearness to one or the
other of those principles. For as we stated above (A. i),
wherever we find a principle, order depends on relation to
that principle

341 THE ORDER OF CHARITY g. 20. Aki. 7

Reply Obj. i. Love can be unequal in two ways: first
on the part of the good we wish our friend. In this respect
we love all men equally out of charity: because we wish
them all one same generic good, namely everlasting happi-
ness. Secondly love is said to be greater through its
action being more intense: and in this way we ought not
to love all equally.

Or we may reply that we have unequal love for certain
persons in two ways: ftrst, through our loving some and not
loving others. As regards beneficence we are bound to
observe this inequality, because we cannot do good to all:
but as regards benevolence, love ought not to be thus
unequal. The other inequality arises from our loving some
more than others: and Augustine does not mean to exclude
the latter inequality, but the former, as is evident from what
he says of beneficence.

Reply Obj. 2. Our neighbours are not all equally related
to (lod; some are nearer to Him, by reason of their greater
goodness, and those we ought, out of charity, to love more
than those who are not so near to Him.

Reply Obj. 3. This argument considers the quantity of
love on the part of the good which we wish our friends.

Seventh Article,
whether we ought to love those who are better
more than those ^ who are more closely united

TO US ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we ought to love those who
are better more than those who are more closely united
to us. For that which is in no way hateful seems more
lovable than that which is hateful for some reason: just
as a thing is all the whiter for having less black mixed
with it. Now those who are connected with us are hateful
for some reason, according to Luke xiv. 26: If any man
come to Me, and hate not his father, etc. On the other hand
good men arc not hateful for any reason. Therefore it seems

Q. 26. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 342

that we ought to love those who are better more than
those who are more closely connected with us.

Ohj. 2. Further, By charity above all, man is likened
to God. But God loves more the better man. Therefore
man also, out of charity, ought to love the better man
more than one who is more closely united to him.

Ohj. 3. Further, In every friendship that ought to be
loved most which has most to do with the foundation of
that friendship: for, by natural friendship we love most
those who are connected with us by nature, our parents
for instance, or our children. Now the friendship of charity
is founded upon the fellowship of happiness, which has
more to do with better men than with those who are more
closely united to us. Therefore, out of charity, we ought
to love better men more than those who are more closely
connected with us.

On the contrary, It is written (i Tim. v. 8) : // any man
have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house,
he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Now
the inward affection of charity ought to correspond to the
outward effect. Therefore charity regards those who are
nearer to us before those who are better.

I answer that, Every act should be proportionate both
to its object and to the agent. But from its object it takes
its species, while, from the power of the agent it takes
the mode of its intensity: thus movement has its species
from the term to which it tends, while the intensity of its
speed arises from the disposition of the thing moved and
the power of the mover. Accordingly love takes its species
from its object, but its intensity is due to the lover.

Now the object of charity's love is God, and man is
the lover. Therefore the specific diversity of the love
which is in accordance with charity, as regards the love
of our neighbour, depends on his relation to God, so that,
out of charity, we should wish a greater good to one who
is nearer to God; for though the good which charity wishes
to all, viz. everlasting happiness, is one in itself, yet it has
various degrees according to various shares of happiness,

I

343 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 7

and it belongs to charity to wish God's justice to be main-
tained, in accordance with which better men have a fuller
share of happiness. And this regards the species of love;
for there are different species of love according to the
different goods that we wish for those whom we love.

On the other hand, the intensity of love is measured with
regard to the man who loves, and accordingly man loves
those who are more closely united to him, with more intense
affection as to the good he wishes for them, than he loves those
who are better as to the greater good he wishes for them.

Again a further difference must be observed here: for
some neighbours are connected with us by their natural
origin, a connection which cannot be severed, since that
origin makes them to be what they are. But the goodness
of virtue, wherein some are close to God, can come and
go, increase and decrease, as was shown above (Q. XXIV.,
AA. 4, 10, 11). Hence it is possible for one, out of charity,
to wish this man who is more closely united to one, to
be better than another, and so reach a higher degree of
happiness.

Moreover there is yet another reason for which, out of
charity, we love more those who are more nearly connected
with us, since we love them in more ways. For, towards
those who are not connected with us we have no other
friendship than charity, whereas for those who are con-
nected with us, we have certain other friendships, accord-
ing to the way in which they are connected. Now since
the good on which every other friendship of the virtuous
is based, is directed, as to its end, to the good on which
charity is based, it follows that charity commands each
act of another friendship, even as the art which is about
the end commands the art which is about the means. Con-
sequently this very act of loving someone because he is
akin or connected with us, or because he is a fellow-country-
man or for any like reason that is referable to the end of
charity, can be commanded by charity, so that, out of
charity both eliciting and commanding, we love in more
ways those who are more nearly connected with us.

g. 26. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 344

Reply Obj. i. We are commanded to hate, in our kindred,
not their kinship, but only the fact of their being an obstacle
between us and (lod. In this respect they are not akin
but hostile to us, according to Mich. vii. 6: A man's enemies
are they of his own household.

Reply Obj. 2. Charity conforms man to (iod propor-
tionately, by making man comport himself towards what
is his, as God does towards what is His. For we may,
out of charity, will certain things as becoming to us which
God does not will, because it becomes Him not to will them,
as stated above (I. -II., Q. XIX., A. lo), when we were
treating of the goodness of the will.

Reply Obj. 3. Charity elicits the act of love not only
as regards the object, but also as regards the lover, as
stated above. The result is that the man who is more
nearly united to us is more loved.

Eighth Article.

whether we ought to love more those who are
connected with us by ties of blood ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —
Objection i. It seems that we ought not to love more
those who are more closely united to us by ties of blood.
For it is written (Prov. xviii. 24) : A man amiable in society,
shall be more friendly than a brother. Again, Valerius
Maximus says (Fact, et Diet, memor. iv. ) : The ties of friendship
are most strong and in no way yield to the ties of blood. More-
over it is quite certain and undeniable, that as to the latter,
the lot of birth is fortuitous, whereas we contract the former
by an untrammelled will, and a solid pledge. Therefore we
ought not to love more than others those who are united
to us by ties of blood.

Obj. 2. Further, Ambrose says {De Officiis i.): / love
not less you whom I have begotten in the Gospel, than if I
had begotten you in wedlock, for nature is no more eager
to love than grace. Surely we ought to love those whom we

345 THE ORDKK OF CHARITY Q. 20. Art. 8

expect to be with us for ever more than those who will he
with us only in this world. Therefore we should not love
our kindred more than thoe^e who arc otherwise connected
with us.

Ohj. 3. Further, Love is proved by deeds, as Gregory
states (Horn, in Ev. xxx.). Now we are bound to do axts
of love to others than our kindred: thus in the army a
man mus.t obey his officer rather than his father. There-
fore wc are not bound to love our kindred most of all.

On the contrary, The commandments of the decalogue
contain a special precept about the honour due; to our
parents (Exod. xx. 12). Therefore we ought to love more
specially those who arc united to us by ties of blood.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 7), we ought out of
charity to love those who are more closely united to us more,
both because our love for them is more intense, and because
there are more reasons for loving them. Now intensity of
love arises from the union of lover and beloved : and therefore
we should measure the love of different persons according
to the different kinds of union, so. that a man is more loved
in matters touching that particular union in respect of
which he is loved. And, again, in comparing love to love
we should compare one union with another.

Accordingly wc must say that friendship among blood
relations is based upon their connection by natural origin,
the friendship of fellow-citizens on their civic fellowship,
and the friendship of those who are fighting side by side
on the comradeship of battle. Wherefore in matters per-
taining to nature we should love our kindred most, in
matters concerning relations between citizens, we should
prefer our fellow-citizens, and on the battlefield our fellow-
soldiers. Hence the Philosopher says [Ethic ix.) that it
is our duty to render to each class of people such respect as
is natural and appropriate. TJiis is i)i fact the prijiciple
upon which we seem to act, for zee invite our relations to a
wedding. . . . It would seem to be a special duty to afford
our parents the means of living . . . aiid to honour them.

The same :\pplics to other kindr> of friendship.

Q. 26. Art. 9 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 346

If however we compare union with union, it is evident
that the union arising from natural origin is prior to, and
more stable than, all others, because it is something affect-
ing the very substance, whereas other unions supervene
and may cease altogether. Therefore the friendship of
kindred is more stable, while other friendships may be
stronger in respect of that which is proper to each of
them.

Reply Ohj. i. In as much as the friendship of comrades
originates through their own choice, love of this kind
takes precedence of the love of kindred in matters where
we are free to do as we choose, for instance in matters of
action. Yet the friendship of kindred is more stable,
since it is more natural, and preponderates over others in
matters touching nature: consequently we are more be-
holden to them in the providing of necessaries.

Reply Ohj. 2. Ambrose is speaking of love with regard
to favours respecting the fellowship of grace, namely,
moral instruction. For in this matter, a man ought to
provide for his spiritual children whom he has begotten
spiritually, more than for the sons of his body, whom he
is bound to support in bodily sustenance.

Reply Ohj. 3. The fact that in the battle a man obeys
his officer rather than his father proves, that he loves his
father less, not simply but relatively, i.e. as regards the
love which is based on fellowship in battle.

Ninth Article.

whether a man ought, out of charity, to love his
children more than his father ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article .•—

Objection 1. It seems that a man ought, out of charity,
to love his children more than his father. For we ought
to love those more to whom we are more bound to do good.
Now we are more bound to do good to our children than
to our parents, since the Apostle says (2 Cor. xii. 14):

347 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 9

Neither ought the children to lay up for the parents, hut the
parents for the children. Therefore a man ought to love
his children more than his parents.

Ohj. 2. Further, Grace perfects nature. But parents
naturally love their children more than these love them, as
the Philosopher states [Ethic, viii.). Therefore a man
ought to love his children more than his parents.

Ohj. 3. Further, Man's affections are conformed to God
by charity. But God loves His children more than they
love Him. Therefore we also ought to love our children
more than our parents.

On the contrary, Ambrose* says: We ought to love God
first, then our parents, then our children, and lastly those of
our household.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 4, ad 1, A. 7), the degrees
of love may be measured from two standpoints. First,
from that of the object. In this respect the better a thing
is, and the more like to God, the more is it to be loved:
and in this way a man ought to love his father more than
his children, because, to wit, he loves his father as his
principle, in which respect he is a more exalted good and
more like God.

Secondly, the degrees of love may be measured from
the standpoint of the lover, and in this respect a man
loves more that which is more closely connected with him,
in which way a man's children are more lovable to him
than his father, as the Philosopher states [Ethic, viii.).
First, because parents love their children as being part
of themselves, whereas the father is not part of his son,
so that the love of a father for his children, is more like
a man's love for himself. Secondly, because parents know
better that so and so is their child than vice versa. Thirdly,
because children are nearer to their parents, as being part
of them, than their parents are to them to whom they
stand in the relation of a principle. Fourthly, because parents
have loved longer, for the father begins to love his child

* The eiuotatiou is from Origen's Second Homily on the Canticle
of Canticles.

Q. 26. Art. 10 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 34S

at once, whereas the child begins to love his father after a
lapse of time; and the longer love lasts, the stronger it is,
according to Ecclus. ix. 14: Forsake not an old friend,
for the new will not he like to him.

Reply Obj. i. A man owes submission, respect and
honour to his principle, while the effect is a competent
subject for the influx and care of its principle: for which
reason children owe their parenl:s honour rather, while
parents owe their children care.

Reply Obj. 2. It is natural for a man as father to love
his children more, if we consider them as closely connected
with him: but if we consider which is the more exalted
good, the son naturally loves his father more.

Reply Obj. 3. As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ, i.),
God loves us for our good and for His honour. Wherefore
since our father is related to us as principle, even as God
is, it belongs properly to the father to receive honour from
his children, and to the children to be provided by their
parents with what is good for them. Nevertheless in
cases of necessity the child is bound out of the favours
received to provide for his parents before all.

Tenth Article.

whether a man ought to love his mother more
than his father ?

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a man ought to love his mother
more than his father. For, as the Philosopher says [De
Gener. Animal, i.), the female produces the body in genera-
tion. Now man receives his soul, not from his father, but
from God by creation, as stated in the First Part (Q. XC,
A. 2: 0. CXVIII.). Therefore a man receives more from
his mother than from his father: and consequently he
ought to love her more than him.

Obj. 2. Further, Where greater love is given, greatei
love is due. Now a mother loves her child more than the
father does: for the Philosopher says [Ethic, ix.) that

349 THE OKDI-K 01- CTIARITY Q. 26. Art. to

mothers have greater love for their children. For the mother
labours more in child-hearing, and she knows more surely
than the father who are her children.

Obj. 3. Further, Love should be more fond towards those
who have laboured for us more, according to Rom. xvi. 6:
Salute Mary, who hath laboured much among you. Now
the mother labours more than the father in giving birth and
education to her child; wherefore it is written (Ecclus.
vii. 29) : Forget not the groanings of thy mother. Therefore
a man ought to love his mother more than his father.

On the contrary, Jerome says on Ezech. xliv. 24 that
man ought to love God the Father of all, and then his own
father, and mentions the mother afterwards.

/ answer that. In making such comparisons as this, we
must take the answer in the strict sense, so that the present
question is whether the father as father, ought to be loved
more than the mother as mother. The reason is that
virtue and vice may make such a difference in suchlike
matters, that friendship may be diminished or destroyed,
as the Philosopher remarks [Ethic, viii.). Hence Ambrose*
says: Good servants should be preferred to wicked children.

Strictly speaking, however, the father should be loved
more than the mother. For father and mother are loved
as principles of our natural origin. Now the father is
principle in a more excellent way than the mother, because
he is the active principle, while the mother is a passive
and material principle. Consequently, strictly speaking,
the father is to be loved more.

Reply Obj. i. In the begetting of man, the mother supplies
the formless matter of the body; and the latter receives
its form through the formative power that is in the semen
of the father. And though this power cannot create the
rational soul, yet it disposes the matter of the bodv to re-
ceive that form.

Reply Obj. 2. This applies to another kind of love. For
the friendship between lover and lover differs specificallv

* The quotation is from Oiigen's Second 1 loniily on the C anticle
of Canticles.

Q. 26. Art. ii THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 350

from the friendship between child and parent: while the
friendship we are speaking of here, is that which a man
owes his father and mother through being begotten of them.
The Reply to the Third Objection is evident.

Eleventh Article.

whether a man ought to love his wife more than
his father and mother ?

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a man ought to love his wife
more than his father and mother. For no man leaves a
thing for another unless he love the latter more. Now
it is written (Gen. ii. 24) that a man shall leave father and
mother on account of his wife. Therefore a man ought to
love his wife more than his father and mother.

Obj. 2. Further, The Apostle says (Eph. v. 33) that a
husband should love his wife as himself. Now a man ought
to love himself more than his parents. Therefore he ought
to love his wife also more than his parents.

Obj. 3. Further, Love should be greater where there are
more reasons for loving. Now there are more reasons for
love in the friendship of a man towards his wife. For the
Philosopher says {Ethic, viii.) that in this friendship there
are the motives of utility, pleasure, and also of virtue, if
husband and wife are virtuous. Therefore a man's love
for his wife ought to be greater than his love for his parents.

On the contrary, According to Eph. v. 28, men ought to
love their wives as their own bodies. Now a man ought to
love his body less than his neighbour, as stated above
(A. 5) : and among his neighbours he should love his parents
most. Therefore he ought to love his parents more than
his wife.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 9), the degrees of love
may be taken from the good (which is loved), or from the
union between those who love. On the part of the good,
which is the object loved, a man should love his parents

351 THE ORDER OF CHARITY g. 26. Art. 12

more than his wife, because he loves them as his principles
and considered as a more exalted good.

But on the part of the union, the wife ought to be loved
more, because she is united to her husband, as one flesh,
according to Matth. xix. 6: Therefore now they are not two,
hut one flesh. Consequently a man loves his wife more
intensely, but his parents with greater reverence.

Reply Ohj. i. A man does not in all respects leave his
father and mother for the sake of his wife: for in certain
cases a man ought to succour his parents rather than his
wife. He does however leave all his kinsfolk, and cleaves
to his wife as regards the union of carnal connection and
cohabitation.

Reply Ohj. 2. The words of the Apostle do not mean that
a man ought to love his wife equally with himself, but that
a man's love for himself is the reason for his love of his
wife, since she is one with him.

Reply Ohj. 3. There are also several reasons for a man's
love for his father; and these, in a certain respect, namely,
as regards good, are more weighty than those for which
a man loves his wife; although the latter outweigh the
former as regards the closeness of union.

As to the argument in the contrary sense, it must be
observed that in the words quoted, the particle as denotes
not equality of love but the motive of love. For the
principal reason why a man loves his wife is her being
united to him in the flesh.

Twelfth Article.

whether a man ought to love more his benefactor
than one he has benefited ?

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : —

Ohjection i. It seems that a man ought to love his
benefactor more than one he has benefited. For Augustine
says [De Catech. Rud. iv.): Nothing will incite a)wther more
to love you than that you love him first: for he )>iust have a
hard heart indeed, who not only refuses to love, hut declines

Q. 26. Art. 12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 352

to return love already given. Now a man's benefactor fore-
stalls him in the kindly deeds of charity. Therefore we
ought to love our benefactors above all.

Ohj. 2. Further, The more grievously we sin by ceasing
to love a man or by working against him, the more ought
we to love him. Now it is a more grievous sin to cease
loving a benefactor or to work against him, than to cease
loving one to whom one has hitherto done kindly actions.
Therefore we ought to love our benefactors more than those
to whom we are kind.

Ohj. 3. Further, Of all things lovable, God is to
be loved most and then one's father, as Jerome says
(on Ezech. xliv. 24). Now these are our greatest
benefactors. Therefore a benefactor should be loved
above all others.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says [Ethic, ix.), that
benefactors seem to love the recipients of their benefactions,
rather than vice versa.

I answer that, As stated above (AA. 9, 11), a thing is
loved more in two ways: first because it has the character
of a more excellent good, secondly by reason of a closer
connection. In the first way we ought to love our bene-
factor most, because, since he is a principle of good to the
man he has benefited, he has the character of a more
excellent good, as stated above with regard to one's father
(A. 9).

In the second way, however, we love those more who have
received benefactions from us, as the Philosopher proves
(Ethic, ix.) by four arguments. First because the recipient
of benefactions is the handiwork of the benefactor, so that
we are wont to say of a man: He was made by so and so.
Now it is natural to a man to love his own work (thus it
is to be observed that poets love their own poems) : and the
reason is that we love to be and to live, and these are made
manifest in our action. Secondly, because we all naturally
love that in which we see our own good. Now it is true
that the benefactor has some good of his in the recipient
of his benefaction, and the recipient some good in the

353 THE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 12

benefactor; but the benefactor sees his virtuous good
in the recipient, while the recipient sees his useful good in
the benefactor. Now it gives more pleasure to see one's
virtuous good than one's useful good, both because it is
more enduring, — for usefulness quickly flits by, and the
pleasure of calling a thing to mind is not like the pleasure
of having it present, — and because it is more pleasant to
recall virtuous goods than the profit we have derived from
others. Thirdly, because it is the lover's part to act,
since he wills and works the good of the beloved, while
the beloved takes a passive part in receiving good, so that
to love surpasses being loved, for which reason the greater
love is on the part of the benefactor. Fourthly because
it is more difficult to give than to receive favours: and we
are most fond of things which have cost us most trouble,
while we almost despise what comes easy to us.

Reply Ohj. 1. It is something in the benefactor that
incites the recipient to love him: whereas the benefactor
loves the recipient, not through being incited by him, but
through being moved thereto of his own accord: and what
we do of our own accord surpasses what we do through
another.

Reply Ohj. 2. The love of the beneficiary for the bene-
factor is more of a duty, wherefore the contrary is the
greater sin. On the other hand, the love of the benefactor
for the beneficiary is more spontaneous, wherefore it is
quicker to act.

Reply Ohj. 3. God also loves us more than we love Him,
and parents love their children more than these love them.

Yet it does not follow that we love all who have received
good from us, more than any of our benefactors. For wc
prefer such benefactors as God and our parents, from whom
we have received the greatest favours, to those on whom
we have bestowed lesser benefits.

II. 11. I 23

Q. 26. Art. 13 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 354

Thirteenth Article,
whether the order of charity endures in heaven ?

We proceed thus to the Thirteenth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the order of charity does not
endure in heaven. For Augustine says {De Vera Relig.
xlviii.): Perfect charity consists in loving greater goods more,
and lesser goods less. Now charity will be perfect in heaven.
Therefore a man will love those who are better more than
either himself or those who are connected with him.

Obj. 2. Further, We love more him to whom we wish
a greater good. Now each one in heaven wishes a greater
good for those who have more good, else his will would not
be conformed in all things to God's will: and there to be
better is to have more good. Therefore in heaven each one
loves more those who are better, and consequently he
loves others more than himself, and one who is not con-
nected with him, more than one who is.

Obj. 3. Further, In heaven love will be entirely for God's
sake, for then will be fulfilled the words of i Cor. xv. 28:
That God may be all in all. Therefore he who is nearer
God will be loved more, so that a man will love a better man
more than himself, and one who is not connected with him,
more than one who is.

On the contrary, Nature is not done away, but perfected,
by glory. Now the order of charity given above (AA. 2,
3, 4) is derived from nature: since all things naturally love
themselves more than others. Therefore this order of
charity will endure in heaven.

/ answer that, The order of charity must needs remain in
heaven, as regards the love of God above all things. For
this wiU be realized simply when man shall enjoy God
perfectly. But, as regards the order between man himself
and other men, a distinction would seeni to be necessary,
because, as we stated above (A A. 7, 9), the degrees of love
may be distinguished either in respect of the good which
a man desires for another, or according to the intensity
of love itself. In the first way a man will love better

355 'f HE ORDER OF CHARITY Q. 26. Art. 13

men more than himself, and those who are less good, less
than himself: because, by reason of the perfect conformity
of the human to the Divine will, each of the blessed will
desire everyone to have what is due to him according to
Divine justice. Nor will that be a time for advancing by
means of merit to a yet greater reward, as happens now
while it is possible for a man to desire both the virtue and
the reward of a better man, whereas then the will of each
one will rest within the limits determined by God. — But
in the second way a man will love himself more than even
his better neighbours, because the intensity of the act of
love arises on the part of the person who loves, as stated
above (AA. 7, 9). Moreover it is for this that the gift of
charity is bestowed by God on each one, namely, that
he may first of all direct his mind to God, and this pertains
to a man's love for himself, and that, in the second place,
he may wish other things to be directed to God, and even
work for that end according to his capacity.

As to the order to be observed among our neighbours, a
man will simply love those who are better, according to
the love of charity. Because the entire life of the blessed
consists in directing their minds to God, wherefore the entire
ordering of their love will be ruled with respect to God,
so that each one will love more and reckon to be nearer to
himself those who are nearer to God. For then one man
will no longer succour another, as he needs to in the present
life, wherein each man has to succour those who are closely
connected with him rather than those who are not, no
matter what be the nature of their distress : hence it is that
in this life, a man, by the inclination of charity, loves
more those who are more closely united to him, for he is
under a greater obligation to bestow on them the effect
of charity. It will however be possible in heaven for a man
to love in several ways one who is connected with him,
since the causes of virtuous love will not be banished from
the mind of the blessed. Yet all these reasons are in-
comparably surpassed by that which is taken from nighness
to God.

Q 26. Art. 13 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 356

Reply Obj. 1. This argument should be granted as to
those who are connected together ; but as regards man him-
self, he ought to love himself so much the more than others,
as his charity is more perfect, since perfect charity directs
man to God perfectly, and this belongs to love of oneself,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument considers the order of charity
in respect of the degree of good one wills the person one
loves.

Reply Obj. 3. God will be to each one the entire reason
of his love, for God is man's entire good. For if we make
the impossible supposition that God were not man^s good,
He would not be man's reason for loving. Hence it is
that in the order of love man should love himself more
than all else after God.

QUESTION XXVII.

OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT OF CHARITY. WHICH IS TO LOVE.

{In Eight Articles.)

We must now consider the act of charity, and (i) the
principal act of charity, which is to love, (2) the other acts
or effects which follow from that act.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:
(i) Which is the more proper to charity, to love or to be
loved ? (2) Whether to love considered as an act of charity
is the same as goodwill ? (3) Whether God should be
loved for His own sake ? (4) Whether God can be loved
immediately in this life ? (5) Whether God can be loved
wholly ? (6) Whether the love of God is according to
measure ? (7) Which is the better, to love one's friend, or
one's enemy ? (8) Which is the better, to love God or
one's neighbour ?

First Article.

whether to be loved is more proper to charity

than to love ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is more proper to charity to
be loved than to love. For the better charity is to be
found in those who are themselves better. But those who
are better should be more loved. Therefore to be loved
is more proper to charity.

Obj. 2. Further, That which is to be found in more subjects
seems to be more in keeping with nature, and, for that
reason, better. Now, as the Philosopher says (Ethic, viii.),

357

Q. 27. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 358

many would rather he loved than love, and lovers of flattery
always abound. Therefore it is better to be loved than to
love, and consequently it is more in keeping with charity.

Ohj. 3. Further, The cause of anything being such is yet
more so [Poster, i.). Now men love because they are loved,
for Augustine says [De Catech. Rud. iv.) that nothing incites
another more to love you than that you love him first. There-
fore charity consists in being loved rather than in loving.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says [Ethic, viii.) that
friendship consists in loving rather than in being loved.
Now charity is a kind of friendship. Therefore it consists
in loving rather than in being loved.

/ answer that, To love belongs to charity as charity.
For, since charity is a virtue, by its very essence it has an
inclination to its proper act. Now to be loved is not the
act of the charity of the person loved; for this act is to
love : and to be loved is competent to him as coming under
the common notion of good, in so far as another tends
towards his good by an act of charity. Hence it is clear
that to love is more proper to charity than to be loved:
for that which befits a thing by reason of itself and its
essence is more competent to it than that which is befitting
to it by reason of something else. This can be exemplified
in two ways. First, in the fact that friends are more com-
mended for loving than for being loved, indeed, if they be
loved and yet love not, they are blamed. Secondly, because
a mother, whose love is the greatest, seeks rather to love
than to be loved: for some women, as the Philosopher ob-
serves [ibid.) entrust their children to a nurse ; they do love
them indeed, yet seek not to be loved in return, if they happen
not to be loved.

Reply Obj. i. A better man, through being better, is more
lovable; but through having more perfect charity, loves
more. He loves more, however, in proportion to the
person he loves. For a better man does not love that
which is beneath him less than it ought to be loved: whereas
he who is less good fails to love one who is better, as much as
he ought to be loved.

359 LOVE Q. 27. Art. 2

Reply Ohj. 2. As the Philosopher says [ibid.), men wish
to he loved in as much as they wish to he honoured. For just
as honour is bestowed on a man in order to bear witness
to the good which is in him, so by being loved a man is
shown to have some good, since good alone is lovable.
Accordingly men seek to be loved and to be honoured, for
the sake of something else, viz. to make known the good
which is in the person loved. On the other hand, those
who have charity seek to love for the sake of loving, as though
this were itself the good of charity, even as the act of any
virtue is that virtue's good. Hence it is more proper to
charity to wish to love than to wish to be loved.

Reply Ohj. 3. Some love on account of being loved, not
so that to be loved is the end of their loving, but because
it is a kind of way leading a man to love.

Second Article.

whether to love considered as an act of charity
is the same as goodwill ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Ohjection i. It seems that to love, considered as an act
of charity, is nothing else than goodwill. For the Philo-
sopher says [Rhet. ii.) that to love is to wish a person well ;
and this is goodwill. Therefore the act of charity is nothing
but goodwill.

Ohj. 2. Further, The act belongs to the same subject
as the habit. Now the habit of charity is in the power
of the will, as stated above (Q. XXIV., A. i). Therefore
the act of charity is also an act of the will. But it tends
to good only, and this is goodwill. Therefore the act of
charity is nothing else than goodwill.

Ohj. 3. Further, The Philosopher reckons five things
pertaining to friendship [Ethic, ix.), the first of which is
that a man should wish his friend well ; the second, that he
should wish him to be and to live; the third, that he should
take pleasure in his company; the fourth, that he should

Q. 27. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 360

make choice of the same things; the fifth, that he should
grieve and rejoice with him. Now the first two pertain
to goodwill. Therefore goodwill is the first act of charity.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says in the same book
that goodwill is neither friendship nor love, hut the beginning
of friendship. Now charity is friendship, as stated above
(O. XXIII. , A. i). Therefore goodwill is not the same as
to love considered as an act of charity.

/ answer that. Goodwill properly speaking is that act of
the will whereby we wish well to another. Now this act
of the will differs from actual love, considered not only
as being in the sensitive appetite but also as being in the
intellective appetite or will. For the love which is in the
sensitive appetite is a passion. Now every passion seeks
its object with a certain eagerness. And the passion of
love is not aroused suddenly, but is born of an earnest
consideration of the object loved; wherefore the Philo-
sopher, showing the difference between goodwill and the love
which is a passion, says [Ethic, ix.) that goodwill does not
imply impetuosity or desire, that is to say, has not an eager
inclination, because it is by the sole judgment of his reason
that one man wishes another well. Again suchlike love
arises from previous acquaintance, whereas goodwill some-
times arises suddenly, as happens to us if we look on at a
boxing-match, and we wish one of the boxers to win. But
the love, which is in the intellective appetite, also differs
from goodwill, because it denotes a certain union of affections
between the loyer and the beloved, in as much as the lover
deems the beloved as somewhat united to him, or belonging
to him, and so tends towards him. On the other hand,
goodwill is a simple act of the will, whereby we wish a
person well, even without presupposing the aforesaid union
of the affections with him.

Accordingly, to love, considered as an act of charity,
includes goodwill, but such dilection or love adds union
of affections, wherefore the Philosopher says [ibid.) that
goodwill is a beginning of friendship.

Reply Obj. 1. The Philosopher, by thus defining to love^

36i LOVE Q. 27. Art. 3

does not describe it fully, but mentions only that part of
its definition in which the act of love is chiefly manifested.

Reply Ohj. 2. To love is indeed an act of the will tending
to the good, but it adds a certain union with the beloved,
which union is not denoted by goodwill.

Reply Ohj. 3. These things mentioned by the Philosopher
belong to friendship because they arise from a .man's love
for himself, as he says in the same passage, in so far as a
man does all these things in respect of his friend, even as
he does them to himself: and this belongs to the aforesaid
union of the affections.

Third Article.

whether out of charity god ought to be loved

for himself ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that (jod is loved out of charity,
not for Himself but for the sake of something else. For
Gregory says in a homily [In Evang. xi.): The soul learns
from the things it knows, to love those it knows not, where
by things unknown he means the intelligible and the Divine,
and by things known he indicates the objects of the senses.
Therefore God is to be loved for the sake of something else.

Obj. 2. Further, Love follows knowledge. But God
is known through something else, according to Rom. i. 20:
The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made. Therefore He is also loved
on account of something else and not for Himself.

Obj. 3. Further, Hope begets charity as a gloss says on
Matth. i. I, diXid fear leads to charity, according to Augustine
in his conuuentary on the First Canonical Epistle of John
[Tract, ix.). Now hope looks forward to obtain something
from (iod, while fear shuns something which can be in-
flicted by (iod. Therefore it seems that God is to be loved
on account of some good we hope for, or some evil to be
feared. Therefore He is not to be loved for Himself.

On the contrary, According to Augustine [De Doctr. i.),

Q. 27. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 362

to enjoy is to cleave to something for its own sake. Now
God is to he enjoyed as he says in the same book. Therefore
God is to be loved for Himself.

/ answer that, The preposition for denotes a relation
of causality. Now there are four kinds of cause, viz. final,
formal, efficient, and material, to which a material disposi-
tion also is to be reduced, though it is not a cause simply
but relatively. According to these four different causes
one thing is said to be loved for another. In respect of
the final cause, we love medicine, for instance, for health;
in respect of the formal cause, we love a man for his virtue,
because, to wit, by his virtue he is formally good and
therefore lovable; in respect of the efficient cause, we love
certain men because, for instance, they are the sons of
such and such a father; and in respect of the disposition
which is reducible to the genus of a material cause, we
speak of loving something for that which disposed us to
love it, e.g. we love a man for the favours received from
him, although after we have begun to love our friend, we
no longer love him for his favours, but for his virtue.

Accordingly, as regards the first three ways, we love God,
not for anything else, but for Himself. For He is not
directed to anything else as to an end, but is Himself the last
end of all things; nor does He require to receive any form
in order to be good, for His very substance is His goodness,
which is itself the exemplar of all other good things; nor
again does goodness accrue to Him from aught else, but
from Him to all other things.

In the fourth way, however. He can be loved for something
else, because we are disposed by certain things to advance
in His love, for instance, by favours bestowed by Him, by
the rewards we hope to receive from Him, or even by the
punishments which we are minded to avoid through Him.

Reply Ohj. i. From the things it knows the soul learns
to love what it knows not, not as though the things it knows
were the reason for its loving things it knows not, through
being the formal, final, or efficient cause of this love, but
because this knowledge disposes man to love the unknown.

363 LOVE Q. 27. Art. 4

Reply Ohj. 2. Knowledge of God is indeed acquired
through other things, but after He is known, He is no longer
known through them, but through Himself, according to
John iv. 42 : We now believe, not for thy saying : for we
ourselves have heard Him, and know that this is indeed the
Saviour of the world.

Reply Ohj. 3. Hope and fear lead to charity by way of
a certain disposition, as was shown above (Q. XVH., A. 8:
Q. XIX., AA. 4, 7, 10).

Fourth Article.

whether god can be loved immediately in

this life ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that God cannot be loved immedi-
ately in this life. For the unknown cannot he loved as
Augustine says {De Trin. x.). Now we do not know God
immediately in this life, since we see now through a glass,
in a dark manner (i Cor. xiii. 12). Neither, therefore, do
we love Him immediately.

Ohj. 2. Further, He who cannot do what is less, cannot do
what is more. Now it is more to love God than to know
Him, since he who is joined to God by love, is one spirit
with Him (i Cor. vi. 17). But man cannot know God
immediately. Therefore much less can he love Him
immediately.

Ohj. 3. Further, Man is severed from God by sin, according
to Isa, lix. 2: Your iniquities have divided between you and
your God. Now sin is in the will rather than in the intellect.
Therefore man is less able to love God immediately than to
know Him immediately.

On the contrary. Knowledge of God, through being
mediate, is said to be enigmatic, and falls away in
heaven, as stated in i Cor. xiii. 12. But charity does
not fall away as stated in the same passage {verse 8).
Therefore the charity of the way adheres to God immediatelv.

/ answer that, As stated above (P. I., O. LXXXII., A. 3:

O. 27. Art 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 364

0. LXXXIV., A. 7), the act of a cognitive power is completed
by the thing known being in the knower, whereas the act
of an appetitive power consists in the appetite being in-
clined towards the thing in itself. Hence it follows that
the movement of the appetitive power is towards things
in respect of their own condition, whereas the act of a
cognitive power follows the mode of the knower.

Now in itself the very order of things is such, that God
is knowable and lovable for Himself, since He is essentially
truth and goodness itself, whereby other things are known
and loved: but with regard to us, since our knowledge is
derived through the senses, those things are knowable first,
which are nearer to our senses, and the last term of knowledge
is that which is most remote from our senses.

Accordingly, we must assert that to love which is an
act of the appetitive power, even in this state of life, tends
to God first, and flows on from Him to other things, and
in this sense charity loves God immediately, and other
things through God. On the other hand, with regard to
knowledge, it is the reverse, since we know God through
other things, either as a cause through its effects, or by
way of pre-eminence or negation as Dionysius states (Div.
Norn. i. cf. P. I., Q. Xn., A. 12).

Reply Ohj. i. Although the unknown cannot be loved,
it does not follow that the order of knowledge is the same
as the order of love, since love is the term of knowledge,
and consequently, love can begin at once where knowledge
ends, namely in the thing itself which is known through
another thing.

Reply Ohj. 2. Since to love God is something greater
than to know Him, especially in this state of life, it follows
that love of God presupposes knowledge of God. And
because this knowledge does not rest in- creatures, but,
through them, tends to something else, love begins there,
and thence goes on to other things by a circular movement
so to speak; for knowledge begins from creatures, tends to
God. and love begins with God as the last end, and passes
on to creatures.

3^5 LOVE g. 27. Art. 5

Reply Obj. 3. Aversion from God, which is brought about
by sin, is removed by charity, but not by knowledge alone :
hence charity, by loving God, unites the soul immediately
to Him with a chain of spiritual union.

Fifth Article,
whether god can be loved wholly ?*

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that God cannot be loved wholly.
For love follows knowledge. Now God cannot be wholly
.known by us, since this would imply comprehension of
Him. Therefore He cannot be wholly loved by us.

Obj. 2. Further, Love is a kind of union, as Dionysius
shows {Div. Nom. iv.). But the heart of man cannot be
wholly united to God, because God is greater than our heart
(i John iii. 20). Therefore God cannot be loved wholly.

Obj. 3. Further, God loves Himself wholly, li there-
fore He be loved wholly by another, this one will love Him
as much as God loves Himself. But this is unreasonable.
Therefore God cannot be wholly loved by a creature.

On the contrary, It is written (Deut. vi. 5) : Thou shall
love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.

I answer that, Since love may be considered as some-
thing between lover and beloved, when we ask whether
God can be wholly loved, the question may be understood
in three ways, first so that the qualification wholly be
referred to the thing loved, and thus God is to be lo\'ed
wholly, since man should love all that pertains to God.

Secondly, it may be understood as though wholly quali
fied the lover: and thus again God ought to be loved wholly,
since man ought to love God with all his might, and to refer
all he has to the love of God, according to Deut. vi. 5:
Thou shall love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.

Thirdly, it may be understood by way of comparison
of the lover to the thing loved, so that the mode of the

♦ Cf. (^). CLXXXIV., A. 2.

Q. 27. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 366

lover equal the mode of the thing loved. This is impossible :
for, since a thing is lovable in proportion to its goodness,
God is infinitely lovable, since His goodness is infinite.
Now no creature can love God infinitely, because all power
of creatures, whether it be natural or infused, "^ is finite.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections, because
the first three objections consider the question in this
third sense, while the last takes it in the second sense.

Sixth Article,
whether in loving god we ought to observe any

MODE ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that v/e ought to observe some
mode in loving God. For the notion of good consists
in mode, species and order, as Augustine states {De Nat.
Boni iii., iv.). Now the love of God is the best thing in
man, according to Coloss. iii. 14: Above all . . . things,
have charity. Therefore there ought to be a mode of the
love of God.

Obj. 2. Further, Augustine says [De Morib. Eccl. viii.):
Prithee, tell me which is the mode of love. For I fear lest
I burn with the desire and love of my Lord, more or less
than I ought. But it would be useless to seek the mode
of the Divine love, unless there were one. Therefore
there is a mode of the love of God.

Obj. 3. Further, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv.)
the measure which nature appoints to a thing, is its mode.
Now the measure of the human will, as also of external
action, is the reason. Therefore just as it is necessary
for the reason to appoint a mode to the exterior effect of
charity, according to Rom. xii. i : Your reasonable service,
so also the interior love of God requires a mode.

On the contrary, Bernard says [De dilig. Deo, i) that God
is the cause of our loving God, the measvre of our love is to
love Him without measure.

367 . LOVE g. 27. Art. 6

/ answer that, As appears from the words of Augustine
quoted above {Ohj. 3) mode signifies a determination of
measure; which determination is to be found both in the
measure and in the thing measured, but not in the same
way. For it is found in the measure essentially, because
a measure is of itself the determining and modifying
rule of other things; whereas in the things measured, it
is found relatively, that is in so far as they attain to the
measure. Hence there can be nothing unmodified in the
measure, whereas the thing measured is unmodified if it
fails to attain to the measure, whether by deficiency or by
excess.

Now in all matters of appetite and action the measure
is the end, because the proper reason for all that we desire
or do should be taken from the end, as the Philosopher
proves [Phys. ii.). Therefore the end has a mode by itself,
while the means take their mode from being propor-
tionate to the end. Hence, according to the Philosopher
(Polit. i.), in every art, the desire for the end is endless and
unlimited, whereas there is a limit to the means: thus the
physician does not put limits to health, but makes it as
perfect as he possibly can; but he puts a limit to medicine,
for he does not give as much medicine as he can, but accord-
ing as health demands, so that if he give too much or too
little, the medicine would be immoderate.

Again, the end of all human actions and affections is
the love of God, whereby principally we attain to our
last end, as stated above (Q. XXIH., A. 6), wherefore
the mode in the love of God, must not be taken as in a
thing measured where we find too much or too little, but
as in the measure itself, where there cannot be excess, and
where the more the rule is attained the better it is, so that
the more we love God the better our love is.

Reply Ohj. i. That which is so by its essence takes pre-
cedence of that which is so through another, wherefore
the goodness of the measure which has the mode essentially,
takes precedence of the goodness of the thing measured,
which has its mode through something else; and so too,

g. 27. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " . 368

charity, which has a mode as a measure has, stands before
the other virtues, which have a mode through being
measured.

Reply Obj. 2. As Augustine adds in the same passage,
the measure of our love for God, is to love Him with our whole
heart, that is, to love Him as much as He can be loved, and
this belongs to the mode which is proper to the measure.

Reply Obj. 3. An affection, whose object is subject to
reason's judgment, should be measured by reason. But
the object of the Divine love which is God surpasses the
judgment of reason, wherefore it is not measured by
reason but transcends it. Nor is there parity between the
interior act and external acts of charity. For the interior
act of charity has the character of an end, since man's
ultimate good consists in his soul cleaving to God, accord-
ing to Ps. Ixxii. 28: It is good for me to adhere to my God;
whereas the exterior acts are as means to the end, and so
have to be measured both according to charity and accord-
ing to reason.

Seventh Article.

whether it is more meritorious to love an enemy
than to love a friend ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — ■

Objection i. It seems more meritorious to love an enemy
than to love a friend. For it is written (Matth. v. 46) :
// you love them that love you, what reward shall you have ?
Therefore it is not deserving of reward to love one's friend:
whereas, as the same passage proves, to love one's enemy
is deserving of a reward. Therefore it is more meritorious
to love one's enemy than to love one's friend.

Obj. 2. Further, An act is the more meritorious through
proceeding from a greater charity. But it belongs to the
perfect children of God to love their enemies, whereas
those also who have imperfect charity love their friends
Therefore it is more meritorious to love one's enemy than
to love one's friend.

369 LOVE Q. 27. Art. 7

Ohj. 3. Further, Where there is more effort for good,
there seems to be more merit, since every man shall receive
his own reward according to his own labour (i Cor. iii. 8).
Now a man has to make a greater effort to love his
enemy than to love his friend, because it is more difficult.
Therefore it seems more meritorious to love one's enemy
than to love one's friend.

Ohj. 4. On the contrary, The better an action is, the more
meritorious it is. Now it is better to love one's friend,
since it is better to love a better man, and the friend who
loves you is better than the enemy who hates you. There-
fore it is more meritorious to love one's friend than to love
one's enemy.

/ answer that, God is the reason for our loving our neigh-
bour out of charity, as stated above (Q. XXV., A. i).
When therefore it is asked which is better or more meri-
torious, to love one's friend or one's enemy, these two loves
may be compared in two ways, first, on the part of our
neighbour whom we love, secondly, on the part of the reason
for which we love him.

In the first way, love of one's friend surpasses love of
one's enemy, because a friend is both better and more closely
united to us, so that he is a more suitable matter of love,
and consequently the act of love that passes over this
matter, is better, and therefore its opposite is worse, for
it is worse to hate a friend than an enemy.

In the second way, however, it is better to love one's
enemy than one's friend, and this for two reasons. First,
because it is possible to love one's friend for another reason
than God, whereas God is the only reason for loving one's
enemy. Secondly, because if we suppose that both are
loved for (iod, our love for (iod is proved to be all the
stronger through carrying a man's affections to things
which are furthest from him, namely, to the love of his
enemies, even as the power of a furnace is proved to be
the stronger, according as it throws its heat to more distant
objects. Hence our love for God is proved to be so much
the stronger, as the more difficult are the things we accom-
II. ii. I 24

O. 27. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOCtICA " 370

plish for its sake, just as the power of fire is so much the
stronger, as it is able to set fire to a less inflammable matter.

Yet just as the same fire acts with greater force on what
is near than on what is distant, so too, charity loves with
greater fervour those who arc united to us than those who
are far removed; and in this respect the love of friends,
considered in itself, is more ardent and better than the
love of one's enemy.

Reply Ohj. i. The words of Our Lord must be taken in
their strict sense: because the love of one's friends is not
meritorious in God's sight when we love them merely
because they are our friends: and this would seem to be
the case when we love our friends in such a way that we
love not our enemies. On the other hand the love of our
friends is meritorious, if we love them for God's sake, and
not merely because they are our friends.

The Reply to the other objections is evident from what
has been said in the article, because the two arguments
that follow consider the reason for loving, while the last
considers the question on the part of those who are loved.

Eighth Article.

WHETHER IT IS MORE MERITORIOUS TO LOVE ONE'S
NEIGHBOUR THAN TO LOVE GOD ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is more meritorious to love
one's neighbour than to love God. For the more meri-
torious thing would seem to be what the Apostle preferred.
Now the Apostle preferred the love of our neighbour to
the love of God, according to Rom. ix. 3: / wished myself
to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren. Therefore
it is more meritorious to love one's neighbour than to love
God.

Obj. 2. Further, In a certain sense it seems to be less
meritorious to love one's friend, as stated above (A. 7).
Now God is our chief friend, since He hath first loved us

371 LOVE Q. 27. Art. 8

(i John iv. 10). Therefore it seems less meritorious to
love God.

Obj. 3. Further, Whatever is more difficult seems to
be more virtuous and meritorious, since virtue is about
that which is difficult and good [Ethic, ii.). Now it is
easier to love (iod than to love one's neighbour, both
because all things love (lOd naturally, and because there
is nothing unlovable in (iod, and this cannot be said of one's
neighbour. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one's
neighbour than to love God.

On the contrary, That on account of which a thing is such,
is yet more so. Now the love of one's neighbour is not
meritorious, except by reason of his being loved for God's
sake, 'i^herefore the love of (lod.is more meritorious than
the love of our neighbour.

/ answer that, This comparison may be taken in two
ways. First, by considering both loves separately: and
then, without doubt, the love of (iod is the more meritorious,
because a reward is due to it for its own sake, since the
ultimate reward is the enjoyment of God, to Whom the
movement of the Divine love tends: hence a reward is
promised to him that loves God (John xiv. 21): He that
loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father, and I will . . .
manifest Myself to him. Secondly, the comparison may
be understood to be between the love of God alone on the
one side, and the lov^ of one's neighbour for God's sake, on
the other. In this way love of our neighbour includes
love of (iod, while love of (iod does not include low of our
neighbour. Hence the comparison will be between perfect
love of Ciod, extending also to our neighbour, and inadequate
and imperfect love of (iod.. for this commandment we have
from God, that he, who loveth God, love also his bro her
(i John iv. 21).

Reply Obj. i. According to one gloss, the Apostle did not
desire this, viz. to be severed from Christ for his brethren,
when he was in a state of grace, but liad fcun^'rly desired
it when he was in a state of unbelief, so that we should
not imitate him in this ix^spect.

Q. 27. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 372

We may also reply, with Chrysostom {De Compunct. i.)
that this does not prove the Apostle to have loved his
neighbour more than God, but that he loved God more than
himself. For he wished to be deprived for a time of the
Divine fruition which pertains to love of onesel ", in order
that God might be honoured in his neighbour, which per-
tains to the love of God.

Reply Obj. 2. A man's love for his friends is sometimes
less meritorious in so far as he loves them for their sake,
so as to fall short of the true reason for the friendship of
charity, which is God. Hence that God be loved for His
own sake does not diminish the merit, but is the entire
reason for merit. ^

Reply Obj. 3. The good has, more than the difficult, to do
with the reason of merit and virtue. Therefore it does not
follow that whatever is more difficult is more meritorious,
but only what is more difficult, and at the same time better.

QUESTION XXVIII.

OF JOY.

[In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the effects which result from the
principal act of charity which is love, and (i) the interior
effects, (2) the exterior effects. As to the first, three things
have to be considered: (i) Joy, (2) Peace, (3) Mercy.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry,
(i) Whether joy is an effect of charity ? (2) Whether this
kind of joy is compatible with sorrow ? (3) W^hether this
joy can be full ? (4) Whether it is a virtue ?

First Article,
whether joy is effected in us by charity ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that joy is not effected in us by
charity. For the absence of what we love causes sorrow
rather than joy. But God, Wliom we love by charity,
is absent from us, so long as we are in this state of life,
since while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord
(2 Cor. V. 6). Therefore charity causes sorrow in us rather
than joy.

Obj. 2. Further, It is chiefly through charity that we
merit happiness. Now mourning, which pertains to
sorrow, is reckoned among those things whereby we merit
happiness, according to Matth. v. 5: Blessed are they that
mourn, for they shall be comforted. Therefore sorrow, rather
than joy, is an effect of charity.

373

Q. 28. Arn-. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' 374

Obj. 3. Further, Charity is a virtue distinct from hope, as
shown above (O. XVII., A. 6). Now joy is the effect of
hope, according to Rom. xii. 12: Rejoicing in hope. There-
fore it is not the effect of charity.

On the contrary, It is written (Rom. v. 5) : The charity
of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is
given to us. But joy is caused in us by the Holy Ghost
according to Rom. xiv. 17: The kingdom of God is not meat
and drink, but justice and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Therefore charity is a cause of joy.

/ answer that. As stated above (I. -II., 0. XXV., AA. i,
2, 3), when we were treating of the passions, joy and sorrow
proceed from love, but in contrary ways. For joy is caused
by love, either through the presence of the thing loved, or
because the proper good of the thing loved exists and endures
in it ; and the latter is the case chiefly in the love of
benevolence, whereby a man rejoices in the well-being of
his friend, though he be absent. On the other hand sorrow
arises from love, either through the absence of the thing
loved, or because the loved object to which we wish well,
is deprived of its good or afflxted with some evil. Now
charity is love of God, Whose good is unchangeable, since
He is His goodness, and from the very fact that He is loved,
He is in those who love Him by His most excellent effect,
according to i John iv. 16: He that abideth in charity, abideth
in God, and God in him. Therefore spiritual joy, which is
about God, is caused by charity.

Reply Obj. i. So long as we are in the body, we are said
to be absent from the Lord, in comparison with that presence
whereby He is present to some by the vision of sight ;
wherefore the Apostle goes on to say (ibid.): For we walk
by faith and not by sight. Nevertheless, even in this life.
He is present to those who love Him, by. the indwelling of
His grace.

Reply Obj. 2. The mourning that merits happiness, is
about those things that are contrary to happiness. Where-
fore it amounts to the same that charity causes this mourn-
ing, and this spiritual joy about God, since to rejoice in

375 • JOY (). 28. Art. 2

a certain good amounts to the same as to grieve for things
that are contrary to it.

Reply Ohj. 3. There can be spiritual joy about (jod in
two ways. First, when we rejoice in the Divine good
considered in itself; secondly, when we rejoice in the Divine
good as participated by us. The former joy is the better,
and proceeds from charity chiefly: while the latter joy
proceeds from hope also, whereby we look forward to enjoy
the Divine good, although this enjoyment itself, whether
perfect or imperfect, is obtained according to the measure
of one's charity.

Second Article.

whether the spiritual joy, which results from
charity, is compatible with an admixture of

SORROW ?

We proceed thus to the Second A Hide : —

Objection i. It seems that the spiritual joy that results
from charity is compatible with an admixture of sorrow.
For it belongs to charity to rejoice in our neighbour's
good, according to i Cor. xiii. 4, 6: Charity . . . rejoiceth
not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth. But this joy is
compatible with an admixture of sorrow, according to
Rom. xii. 15: Rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them
that weep. Therefore the spiritual joy of charity is com-
patible with an admixture of sorrow.

Obj. 2. Further, According to Gregory [Horn, in Evang.
xxxiv.), penance consists in deploring past sijis, and in not
committing again those we have deplored. But there is
no true penance without charity. Therefore the joy of
charity has an admixture of sorrow.

Obj. 3. Further, It is through charity that man desires
to be with Christ according to Philip, i. 2^ : Having a desire
to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Now this desire gives
rise, in man, to a certain sadness, according to Ps. cxix. 5:
Woe is me that my sojourning is prolonged I Therefore the
joy of charity admilr. of a seasoning of sorrow.

Q, 28. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 376

On the contrary, The joy of charity is joy about the
Divine wisdom. Now suchlike joy has no admixture of
sorrow, according to Wis. viii. 16: Her conversation hath no
bitterness. Therefore the joy of charity is incompatible
with an admixture of sorrow.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i, ai 3), a twofold joy
in God arises from charity. One, the more excellent, is
proper to charity; and with this joy we rejoice in the Divine
good considered in itself. This joy of charity is incom-
patible with an admixture of sorrow, even as the good
which is its object is incompatible with any admixture of
evil: hence the Apostle says (Philip, iv. 4): Rejoice in the
Lord always.

The other is the joy of charity whereby we rejoice in
the Divine good as participated by us. This participation
can be hindered by anything contrary to it, wherefore,
in this respect, the joy of charity is compatible with an
admixture of sorrow, in so far as a man grieves for that
which hinders the participation of the Divine good, either
in us or in our neighbour, whom we love as ourselves.

Reply Obj. 1. Our neighbour does not weep save on
account of some evil. Now every evil implies lack of
participation in the sovereign good: hence charity makes
us weep with our neighbour in so far as he is hindered
from participating in the Divine good.

Reply Obj. 2. Our sins divide between us and God,
according to Isa. lix. 2; wherefore this is the reason why we
grieve for our past sins, or for those of others, in so far as
they hinder us from participating in the Divine good.

Reply Obj. 3. Although in this unhappy abode we partici-
pate, after a fashion, in the Divine good, by knowledge and
love, yet the unhappiness of this life is an obstacle to a
perfect participation in the Divine good: hence this very
sorrow, whereby a man grieves for the delay of glory, is
connected with the hindrance to a participation of the
Divine good.

377 JOV g. 28 Art. 3

Third Article.

whether the spiritual joy which proceeds from
charity, can be filled ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the spiritual joy which proceeds
from charity cannot be filled. For the more we rejoice
in God, the more is our joy in Him filled. But we can never
rejoice in Him as much as it is meet that we should rejoice
in God, since His goodness which is infinite, surpasses the
creature's joy which is finite. Therefore joy in God can
never be filled.

Ohj. 2. Further, That which is filled cannot be increased.
But the joy, even of the blessed, can be increased, since one's
joy is greater than another's. Therefore joy in God cannot
be filled in a creature.

Ohj. 3. Further, Comprehension seems to be nothing
else than the fulness of knowledge. Now, just as the
cognitive power of a creature is finite, so is its appetitive
power. Since therefore God cannot be comprehended
by any creature, it seems that no creature's joy in God
can be filled.

On the contrary, Our Lord said to His disciples (John
XV. 11): That My joy may he in you, and your joy may he
filled.

I answer that, Fulness of joy can be understood in two
ways; first, on the part of the thing rejoiced in, so that one
rejoice in it as much as it is meet that one should rejoice
in it, and thus God's joy alone in Himself is filled, because
it is infinite; and this is condignly due to the infinite good-
ness of God: but the joy of any creature must needs be
finite. Secondly, fulness of joy may be understood on
the part of the one who rejoices. Now joy is compared
to desire, as rest to movement, as stated above (I. -I I.,
Q. XXV., AA. I, 2), when we were treating of the passions:
and rest is full when there is no more movement. Hence
joy is full, when there remains nothing to be deshed. But

Q. 28. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " :^yS

as long as we are in this world, the movement of desire
does not cease in us, because it still remains possible for
us to approach nearer to God by grace, as was shown
above (O. XXIV., AA. 4, 7). When once, however,
perfect happiness has been attained, nothing will remain
to be desired, because then there will be full enjoyment of
(iod, wherein man will obtain whatever he had desired,
even with regard to other goods, according to Ps. cii. 5:
Who satisfieth thy desire with good things. Hence desire
will be at rest, not only our desire for God, but all our
desires: so that the joy of the blessed is full to perfec-
tion,— indeed over-full, since they will obtain more than
they were capable of desiring: for neither hath it entered
into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them
that love Him (i Cor. ii. 9). This is what is meant by the
words of Luke vi. 38: Good measure and pressed down,
and shaken together, and running over shall they give into
your bosom. Yet, since no creature is capable of the joy
condignly due to God, it follows that this perfectly full
joy is not taken into man, but, on the contrary, man
enters into it, according to Matth. xxv. 21: Enter into
the joy of thy Lord.

Reply Obj. 1. This argument takes the fulness of joy
in reference to the thing in which we rejoice.

Reply Obj. 2. When each one attains to happiness he
will reach the term appointed to him by Divine predestina-
tion, and nothing further will remain to which he may tend,
although by reaching that term, some will approach
nearer to God than others. Hence each one's joy will
be full with regard to himself, because his desire will be
fully set at rest ; yet one's joy will be greater than another's,
on account of a fuller participation of the Divine happiness.

Reply Obj. 3. Comprehension denotes fulness of know-
ledge in respect of the thing known, so that it is known as
much as it can be. There is however a fulness of know-
ledge in respect of the knower, just as we have said of joy.
Wherefore the Apostle says (Coloss. i. 9) : That you may be
filled with the knowledge of His will, in all wisdom and
spiritual understanding.

379 J^^^ Q. 28. Art. 4

Fourth Article,
whether joy is a virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that joy is a virtue. For vice is
contrary to virtue. Now sorrow is set down as a vice,
as in the case of sloth and envy. Therefore joy also should
be accounted a virtue.

Ohj. 2. Further, As love and hope are passions, the object
of which is good, so also is joy. Now love and hope are
reckoned to be virtues. Therefore joy also should be
reckoned a virtue.

Ohj. 3. Further, The precepts of the Law are about acts
of virtue. But we are commanded to rejoice in the Lord,
according to Philip, iv. 4: Rejoice in the Lord always. There-
fore joy is a virtue.

On the contrary, It is not numbered among the theological
virtues, nor among the moral, nor among the intellectual
virtues, as is evddent from what has been said above (I. -I I.,
00. i VIL, LX., LXIL).

/ answer that, As stated above (I. -I I., 0. LV., A A. 2, 4),
virtue is an operative habit, wherefore by its very nature
it has an inclination to a certain act. Now it may happen
that from the same habit there proceed several ordinate
and homogeneous acts, each of which follows from another.
And since the subsequent acts do not proceed from the
virtuous habit except through the preceding act, hence it
is that the virtue is defined and named in reference to that
preceding act, although those other acts also proceed from
the virtue. Now it is evident from what we have said
about the passions (I.-IL, O. XXV., AA. 2, 4) that love is
the first affection of the appetitive power, and that desire
and joy foUow from it. Hence the same virtuous habit
inclines us to love and desire the beloved good, and to
rejoice in it. But in as much as love is the first of these
acts, that virtue takes its name, not from joy. nor from
desire, but from love, and is called charity. Hence joy is

Q. 28. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 380

not a virtue distinct from charity, but an act, or effect,
of charity: for which reason it is numbered among the
Fruits (Gal. v. 22).

Reply Ohj. i. The sorrow which is a vice is caused by
inordinate self-love, and this is not a special vice, but a
general source of the vices, as stated above (I. -II.,
Q. LXXVIL, A. 4); so that it was necessary to account
certain particular sorrows as special vices, because they
do not arise from a special, but from a general vice. On the
other hand love of God is accounted a special virtue, namely
charity, to which joy must be referred, as its proper act, as
stated above (here and A. 2).

Reply Ohj. 2. Hope proceeds from love even as joy does,
but hope adds, on the part of the object, a special character,
viz. difficult, and possible to obtain ; for which reason it is
accounted a special virtue. On the other hand joy does
not add to love any special aspect, that might cause a
special virtue.

Reply Obj. 3. The Law prescribes joy, as being an act of
charity, albeit not its first act.

QUESTION XXIX.

OF PEACE.

[In Four Articles.)

We must now consider peace, under which head there are
four points of inquiry: (i) Whether peace is the same as
concord ? (2) Whether all things desire peace ? (3)Whether
peace is an effect of charity ? (4) Wliether peace is a
virtue ?

First Article,
whether peace is the same as concord ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that peace is the same as concord.
For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix.): Peace among men
is well ordered concord. Now we are speaking here of no
other peace than that of men. Therefore peace is the same
as concord.

Ohj. 2. Further, Concord is union of wills. Now the
nature of peace consists in suchlike union, for Dionysius
says [Div. Nom. xi.) that peace unites all, and makes them
of one mind. Therefore peace is the same as concord.

Ohj. 3. Further, Things whose opposites are identical
are themselves identical. Now the one same thing is
opposed to concord and peace, viz. dissension; hence it is
written (i Cor. xiv. 33): God is not the God of dissension hut
of peace. Therefore peace is the same as concord.

On the contrary, There can be concord in evil between
wicked men. But there is no peace to the wicked (Isa.
xlviii. 22). Therefore peace is not the same as concord.

381

Q. 29. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 382

/ answer that, Peace includes concord and adds something
thereto. Hence wherever peace is, there is concord, but
there is not peace, wherever there is concord, if we give
peace its proper meaning.

For concord, properly speaking, is between one man
and another, in so far as the wills of various hearts agree
together in consenting to the same thing. Now the heart
of one man may happen to tend to diverse things, and this
in two ways. First, in respect of the diverse appetitive
powers: thus the sensitive appetite tends sometimes to
that which is opposed to the rational appetite, according
to (jal. V. 17: The flesh lusteth against the spirit. Secondly,
in so far as one and the same appetitive power tends to
diverse objects of appetite, which it cannot obtain all at
the same time: so that there must needs be a clashing of
the movements of the appetite. Now the union of such
movements is essential to peace, because man's heart is
not at peace, so long as he has not what he wants, or if,
having what he wants, there still remains something for
him to want, and which he cannot have at the same time.
On the other hand this union is not essential to concord:
wherefore concord denotes union of appetites among
various persons, while peace denotes, in addition to this
union, the union of the appetites even in one man.

Reply Obj. i. Augustine is speaking there of that peace
which is between one man and another, and he says that
this peace is concord, not indeed any kind of concord, but
that which is well ordered, through one man agreeing with
another in respect of something befitting to both of them.
For if one man concord with another, not of his own accord,
but through being forced, as it were, by the fear of some
evil that besets him, such concord is not really peace,
because the order of each concordant is not observed, but
is disturbed by some fear-inspiring cause.' For this reason
he premises that peace is tranquillity of order, which tranquil-
lity consists in all the appetitive movements in one man
being set at rest together.

Reply Obj. 2. If one man consent to the same thing

383 PEACE Q. 29. Art. 2

together with another man, his consent is nevertheless
not perfectly united to himself, unless at the same time all
his appetitive movements be in agreement.

Reply Obj. 3. A twofold dissension is opposed to peace,
namely dissension between a man and himself, and dis-
sension between one man and another. The latter alone
is opposed to concord.

Second Article,
whether all things desire peace ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that not all things desire peace.
For, according to Dionysius {Div. Nom. xi.), peace unites
consent. But there cannot be unity of consent in things
which are devoid of knowledge. Therefore such things
cannot desire peace.

Obj. 2. Further, The appetite does not tend to opposite
things at the same time. Now many desire war and dis-
sension. Therefore all men do not desire peace.

Obj. 3. Further, Good alone is an object of appetite.
But a certain peace is, seemingly, evil, else Our Lord would
not have said (Matth. x. 34): / came not to send peace.
Therefore all things do not desire peace.

Obj. 4. Further, That which all desire is, seemingly, the
sovereign good which is the last end. But this is not true
of peace, since it is attainable even by a wayfarer; else Our
Lord would vainly command (Mark ix. 49) : Have peace
among yon. Therefore all things do not desire peace.

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Civ. Dei, xix.) that
all things desire peace : and Dionysius says the same (Div.
Nom. xi.).

/ ansiiDer that. From the very fact that a man desires a
certain thing it follows that he desires to obtain what he
desires, and, in consequence, to remove whatever mav be
an obstacle to his obtaining it. Now a man may be
hindered from obtaining the good he desires, by a contrary
desire either of his own or of some other, and both are

Q. 29. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 384

removed by peace, as stated above. Hence it follows of
necessity that whoever desires anything desires peace, in
so far as he who desires anything, desires to attain, with
tranquillity and without hindrance, to that which he de-
sires: and this is what is meant by peace which Augustine
defines {De Civ. Dei xix.) the tranquillity of order.

Reply Obj. 1. Peace denotes union not only of the intel-
lective or rational appetite, or of the animal appetite, in
both of which consent may be found, but also of the natural
appetite. Hence Dionysius says that peace is the cause
of consent and of connaturality, where consent denotes the
union of appetites proceeding from knowledge, and con-
naturality, the union of natural appetites.

Reply Obj. 2. Even those who seek war and dissension,
desire nothing but peace, which they deem themselves not
to have. For as we stated above, there is no peace when
a man concords with another man counter to what he would
prefer. Consequently men seek by means of war to
break this concord, because it is a defective peace, in
order that they may obtain peace, where nothing is contrary
to their will. Hence all wars are waged that men may find
a more perfect peace than that which they had heretofore.

Reply Obj. 3. Peace gives calm and unity to the appetite.
Now just as the appetite may tend to what is good
simply, or to what is good apparently, so too, peace may
be either true or apparent. There can be no true peace
except where the appetite is directed to what is truly good,
since every evil, though it may appear good in a way,
so as to calm the appetite in some respect, has, nevertheless
many defects, which cause the appetite to remain restless
and disturbed. Hence true peace is only in good men and
about good things. The peace of the wicked is not a true
peace but a semblance thereof, wherefore it is written
(Wis. xiv. 22) : Whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance,
they call so many and so great evils peace. •

Reply Obj. 4. Since true peace is only about good things,
as the true good is possessed in two ways, perfectly and
imperfectly, so there is a twofold true peace. One is perfect

85 PEACE Q. 29. Art. 3

peace. It consists in the perfect enjoyment of the sovereign
good, and unites all one's desires by giving them rest in
one object. This is the last end of the rational creature,
according to Ps, cxlvii. 14: Who hath placed peace in thy
borders. The other is imperfect peace, which may be had
in this world, for though the chief movement of the soul
finds rest in God, yet there are certain things within and
without which disturb that peace.

Third Article,
whether peace is the proper effect of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —
Objection i. It seems that peace is not the proper effect
of charity. For one cannot have charity without sanctify-
ing grace. But some have peace who have not sanctifying
grace, thus heathens sometimes have peace. Therefore
peace is not the effect of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, If a certain thing is caused by charity,
its contrary is not compatible with charity. But dissen-
sion, which is contrary to peace, is compatible with charity,
for we find that even holy doctors, such as Jerome and
Augustine, dissented in some of their opinions. We also
read that Paul and Barnabas dissented from one another
(Acts XV.). Therefore it seems that peace is not the
effect of charity.

Obj. 3. Further, The same thing is not the proper effect
of different things. Now peace is the effect of justice,
according to Isa. xxxii. 17: And the work of justice shall be
peace. Therefore it is not the effect of charity.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. cxviii. 165) : Much
peace have they that love Thy Law.

I answer that, Peace implies a twofold union, as stated
above (A. i). The first is the result of one's own appetites
being directed to one object; while the other results from
one's own appetite being united with the appetite of
another: and each of these unions is effected by charity: —
the first, in so far as man loves God with his whole heart,
II. ii. I 2s

Q. 29. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 386

by referring all things to Him, so that all his desires tend
to one object : — the second, in so far as we love our neighbour
as ourselves, the result being that we wish to fulfil our
neighbour's will as though it were ours: for which reason
it is reckoned a sign of friendship if people make choice of
the same things {Ethic, ix.), and Tully says [De Amicitia)
that friends like and dislike the same things.

Reply Ohj. i. Without sin no one falls from a state of
sanctifying grace, for it turns man away from his due end
by making him place his end in something undue: so that
his appetite does not cleave chiefly to the true final good,
but to some apparent good. Hence, without sanctifying
grace, peace is not real but merely apparent.

Reply Ohj. 2. As the Philosopher says {Ethic, ix.) friends
need not agree in opinion, but only upon such goods as
conduce to life, and especially upon such as are important ;
because dissension in small matters is scarcely accounted
dissension. Hence nothing hinders those who have charity
from holding different opinions. Nor is this an obstacle
to peace, because opinions concern the intellect, which
precedes the appetite that is united by peace. In like
manner if there be concord as to goods of importance,
dissension with regard to some that are of little account
is not contrary to charity: for such a dissension proceeds
from a difference of opinion, because one man thinks that
the particular good, which is the object of dissension,
belongs to the good about which they agree, while the
other thinks that it does not. Accordingly suchlike dis-
sension about very slight matters and about opinions is in-
consistent with a state of perfect peace, wherein the truth
will be known fully, and every desire fulfilled; but it is not
inconsistent with the imperfect peace of the wayfarer.

Reply Ohj. 3. Peace is the work of justice indirectly, in so
far as justice removes the obstacles to peace: but it is the
work of charity directly, since charity, according to its
very nature, causes peace. For love is a unitive force as
Dionysius says {Div. Nom. iv.): and peace is the union of
the appetite's inclinations.

387 PEACE Q. 29. Art. 4

Fourth Article,
whether peace is a virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that peace is a virtue. For nothing
is a matter of precept, unless it be an act of virtue. But
there are precepts about keeping peace, for example:
Have peace among you (Mark ix. 49). Therefore peace is
a virtue.

Ohj. 2. Further, We do not merit except by acts of
virtue. Now it is meritorious to keep peace, according
to Matth. V. 9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall
he called the children of God. Therefore peace is a virtue.

Ohj. 3. Further, Vices are opposed to virtues. But
dissensions, which are contrary to peace, are numbered
among the vices (Gal. v. 20). Therefore peace is a virtue.

On the contrary, Virtue is not the last end, but the way
thereto. But peace is the last end, after a fashion, as
Augustine says {De Civ. Dei xix.). Therefore peace is
not a virtue.

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. XXVIII., A. 4), when
a number of acts all proceeding uniformly from an agent,
follow one from the other, they all arise from the same virtue,
nor do they each have a virtue from which they proceed,
as may be seen in corporeal things. For, though fire by
heating, both liquefies and rarefies, there are not two
powers in fire, one of liquefaction, the other of rarefaction:
and fire produces all such actions by its one power of
calefaction.

Since then charity causes peace precisely because it is
love of God and of our neighbour, as shown above (A. 3),
there is no other virtue except charity whose proper act
is peace, as we have also said in reference to joy (0. XXVIII.,

A. 4)-

Reply Ohj. i. We are commanded to keep peace because
it is an act of charity; and for this reason too it is a
meritorious act. Hence it is placed among the beatitudes,

Q. 2Q. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 388

which are acts of perfect virtue, as stated above (I. -II.,
Q. LXIX., AA. I, 3). It is also numbered among the
fruits, in so far as it is a final good, having spiritual sweet-
ness.

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Ohj. 3. Several vices are opposed to one virtue
in respect of its various acts: so that not only is hatred
opposed to charity, in respect of its act which is love,
but also sloth and envy, in respect of joy, and dissension
in respect of peace.

QUESTION XXX.

OF MERCY.*

{In Four Articles.)

We must now go on to consider Mercy, under which head
there are four points of inquiry: (i) Whether evil is the
cause of mercy on the part of the person pitied ? (2) To
whom does it belong to pity ? (3) Whether mercy is a
virtue ? (4) Whether it is the greatest of virtues ?

First Article,
whether evil is properly the motive of mercy ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that, properly speaking, evil is not
the motive of mercy. For, as shown above (Q. XIX.,
A. I : I.-IL, Q. LXXIX., A. 1, ad ^: P. I., 0. XLvflL, A. 6),
fault is an evil rather than punishment. Now fault pro-
vokes indignation rather than mercy. Therefore evil does
not excite mercy.

Ohj. 2. Further, Cruelty and harshness seem to excel
other evils. Now the Philosopher says {Rhet. ii.) that
harshness does not call for pity hut drives it away-. Therefore
evil, as such, is not the motive of mercy.

Ohj. 3. Further, Signs of evils are not true evils. But
signs of evils excite one to mercy, as the Philosopher states

* The one Latin word misericordia signifies either pity or mercy.
The distinction between these two is that pity may stand either
for the act or for the virtue, whereas mercy stands only for the
virtue.

389

Q. 30. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 390

{Rhet. ii.). Therefore evil, properly speaking, is not an
incentive to mercy.

On the contrary, Damascene says [De Fide Orthod. ii.) that
mercy is a hind of sorrow. Now evil is the motive of sorrow.
Therefore it is the motive of mercy.

/ answer that, As Augustine says {De Civ. Dei ix.), mercy
is heartfelt sympathy for another's distress, impelling us to
succour him if we can. For mercy takes its name miseri-
cordia from denoting a man's compassionate heart [miserum
cor) for another's unhappiness. Now unhappiness is
opposed to happiness: and it is essential to beatitude or
happiness that one should obtain what one wishes; for,
according to Augustine [De Trin.), happy is he who has
whatever he desires, and desires nothing amiss. Hence, on the
other hand, it belongs to unhappiness that a man should
suffer what he wishes not.

Now a man wishes a thing in three ways: first, by his
natural appetite; thus all men naturally wish to be and
to live: secondly, a man wishes a thing from deliberate
choice: thirdly, a man wishes a thing, not in itself, but in
its cause, thus, if a man wishes to eat what is bad for him,
we say that, in a way, he wishes to be ill.

Accordingly the motive of mercy, being something
pertaining to misery, is, in the first way, anything
contrary to the will's natural appetite, namely corrup-
tive or distressing evils, the contrary of which man desires
naturally, wherefore the Philosopher says {Rhet. ii.) that
pity is sorrow for a visible evil, whether corruptive or distress-
ing. Secondly, suchlike evils are yet more provocative
of pity if they are contrary to deliberate choice, wherefore
the Philosopher says {ibid.) that evil excites our pity
when it is the result of an accident, as when something
turns out ill, whereas we hoped well of it. Thirdly, they
cause yet greater pity, if they are entirely contrary to the
will, as when evil befalls a man who has always striven
to do well: wherefore the Philosopher says {ibid.) that we
pity most the distress of one who suffers undeservedly.

Reply Obj. i. It is essential to fault that it be voluntary;

391 MERCY Q. 30. Art. 2

and in this respect it deserves punishment rather than
mercy. Since, however, fault may be, in a way, a punish-
ment, through having something connected with it that
is against the sinner's will, it may, in this respect, call
for mercy. It is in this sense that we pity and commiserate
sinners. Thus Gregory says in a homily {Horn, in Ev.
xxxiv.) that true godliness is not disdainful but com-
passionate, and again it is written (Matth. ix. 36) that
Jesus seeing the multitudes, had compassion on them : because
they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd.

Reply Obj. 2. Since pity is sympathy for another's distress,
it is directed, properly speaking, towards another, and
not to oneself, except figuratively, like justice, according
as a man is considered to have various parts {Ethic, v.).
Thus it is written (Ecclus. xxx. 24) : Have pity on thy
own soul, pleasing God.

Accordingly just as, properly speaking, a man does not
pity himself, but suffers in himself, as when we suffer cruel
treatment in ourselves, so too, in the case of those who are
so closely united to us, as to be part of ourselves, such as
our children or our parents, we do not pity their distress,
but suffer as for our own sores; in which sense the Philo-
sopher says that harshness drives pity away.

Reply Obj. 3. Just as pleasure results from hope and
memory of good things, so does sorrow arise from the
prospect or the recollection of evil things; though not so
keenly as when they are present to the senses. Hence the
signs of evil move us to pity, in so far as they represent
as present, the evil that excites our pity.

Second Article.

whether the reason for taking pity is a defect in
the person who pities ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the reason for taking pity is
not a defect in the person who takes pity. For it is proper
to God to be merciful, wherefore it is written (Ps. cxliv. 9):

Q. 30. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 392

His tender mercies are over all His works. But there is no
defect in God. Therefore a defect cannot be the reason
for taking pity.

Ohj. 2. Further, If a defect is the reason for taking pity,
those in whom there is most defect, must needs take most
pity. But this is false: for the Philosopher says [Rhet. ii.)
that those who are in a desperate state are pitiless. There-
fore it seems that the reason for taking pity is not a defect
in the person who pities.

Ohj. 3. Further, To be treated with contempt is to be
defective. But the Philosopher says {ibid.) that those who
are disposed to contumely are pitiless. Therefore the reason
for taking pity, is not a defect in the person who pities.

On the contrary, Pity is a kind of sorrow. But a defect
is the reason of sorrow, wherefore those who are in bad
health give way to sorrow more easily, as we shall say
further on (Q. XXXV., A. i, ad 2). Therefore the reason
why one takes pity is a defect in oneself.

I answer that, Since pity is grief for another's dis-
tress, as stated above (A. i), from the very fact that a
person takes pity on anyone, it follows that another's
distress grieves him. And since sorrow or grief is about
one's own ills, one grieves or sorrows for another's distress,
in so far as one looks upon another's distress as one's own.

Now this happens in two ways: first, through union of
the affections, which is the effect of love. For, since he
who loves another looks upon his friend as another self,
he counts his friend's hurt as his own, so that he grieves
for his friend's hurt as though he were hurt himself. Hence
the Philosopher reckons grieving with one's friend as
being one of the signs of friendship, and the Apostle says
(Rom. xii. 15) : Rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them
that weep.

Secondly, it happens through real union, for instance
when another's evil comes near to us, so as to pass to us
from him. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii.) that men
pity such as are akin to them, and the like, because it
makes them realise that the same may happen to them-

393 MERCY Q 30. Art. 3

selves. This also explains why the old and the wise who
consider that they may fall upon evil times, as also feeble
and timorous persons, are more inclined to pity: whereas
those who deem themselves happy, and so far powerful
as to think themselves in no danger of suffering any hurt,
are not so inclined to pity.

Accordingly a defect is always the reason for taking pity,
either because one looks upon another's defect as one's own,
through being united to him by love, or on account of the
possibility of suffering in the same way.

Reply Obj. i. God takes pity on us through love alone,
in as much as He loves us as belonging to Him.

Reply Obj. 2. Those who are already in infinite distress,
do not fear to suffer more, wherefore they are without pity.
In like manner this applies to those also who are in great
fear, for they are so intent on their own passion, that they
pay no attention to the suffering of others.

Reply Obj. 3. Those who are disposed to contumely,
whether through having been contemned, or because they
wish to contemn others, are incited to anger and daring,
which are manly passions and arouse the human spirit to
attempt difficult things. Hence they make a man think
that he is going to suffer something in the future, so that
while they are disposed in that way they are pitiless, accord-
ing to Prov. xxvii. 4: Anger hath no mercy, nor fury when
it breaketh forth. For the same reason the proud are with-
out pity, because they despise others, and think them
wicked, so that they account them as suffering deservedly
whatever they suffer. Hence Gregory says [Horn, in Ev.
xxxiv.) that false godliness, i.e. of the proud, is not com-
passionate but disdainful.

Third Article.

whether mercy is a virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —
Objection i. It seems that mercy is not a virtue. For
the chief part of virtue is choice as the Philosopher states

Q. 30. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 394

{Ethic, ii.). Now choice is the desire of what has been already
counselled (ibid.). Therefore whatever hinders counsel
cannot be called a virtue. But mercy hinders counsel,
according to the saying of Sallust (Catilin.): All those that
take counsel about matters of doubt, should be free from . . .
anger . . . and mercy, because the mind does not easily see
aright, when these things stand in the way. Therefore mercy
is not a virtue.

Obj. 2. Further, Nothing contrary to virtue is praise-
worthy. But nemesis is contrary to mercy, as the Philo-
sopher states [Rhet. ii.), and yet it is a praiseworthy passion
[ibid.). Therefore mercy is not a virtue.

Obj. 3. Further, Joy and peace are not special virtues,
because they result from charity, as stated above
(Q. XXVIII., A. 4: Q. XXIX., A. 4). Now mercy, also,
results from charity; for it is out of charity that we weep
with them that weep, as we rejoice with them that rejoice.
Therefore mercy is not a special virtue.

Obj. 4. Further, Since mercy belongs to the appetitive
power, it is not an intellectual virtue, and, since it has not
God for its object, neither is it a theological virtue. More-
over it is not a moral virtue, because neither is it about
operations (for this belongs to justice) nor is it about
passions, since it is not reduced to one of the twelve means
mentioned by the Philosopher [Ethic, ii.). Therefore mercy
is not a virtue.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Civ. Dei ix.): Cicero
in praising Ccesar expressed himself much better and in a
fashion at once more humane and more in accordance with
religious feeling, when he says : * Of all thy virtues none is
more marvellous or more graceful than thy mercy? Therefore
mercy is a virtue.

/ answer that, Mercy signifies grief for another's distress.
Now this grief may denote, in one way, a movement of the
sensitive appetite, in which case mercy is not a virtue but a
passion ; whereas, in another way, it may denote a movement
of the intellective appetite, in as much as one person's evil
is displeasing to another. This movement may be ruled

395 MERCY Q. 30. Art. 3

in accordance with reason, and in accordance with this
movement regulated by reason, the movement of the
lower appetite may be regulated. Hence Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei ix.) that this movement of the mind (viz. mercy)
obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that
justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive
the repentant. And since it is essential to human virtue
that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason,
as was shown above (I. -II., Q. LIX., AA. 4, 5), it follows
that mercy is a virtue.

Reply Obj. i. The words of Sallust are to be understood
as applying to the mercy which is a passion unregulated by
reason: for thus it impedes the counselling of reason, by
making it wander from justice.

Reply Obj. 2. The Philosopher is speaking there of pity
and nemesis, considered, both of them, as passions. They
are contrary to one another on the part of their respective
estimation of another's evils, for which pity grieves,
in so far as it esteems someone to suffer undeservedly,
whereas nemesis rejoices, in so far as it esteems someone
to suffer deservedly, and grieves, if things go well with the
undeserving: both of these are praiseworthy and come from
the same disposition of character {ibid.). Properly speak-
ing, however, it is envy which is opposed to pity, as
we shall state further on (Q. XXXVI., A. 3).

Reply Obj. 3. Joy and peace add nothing to the aspect
of good which is the object of charity, wherefore the^^ do
not require any other virtue besides charity. But mercy
regards a certain special aspect, namely the misery of the
person pitied.

Reply Obj. 4. Mercy, considered as a virtue, is a moral
virtue having relation to the passions, and it is reduced
to the mean called nemesis, because they both proceed from
the same character [Rhet. ii.). Now the Philosopher pro-
poses these means not as virtues, but as passions, because,
even as passions, they are praiseworthy. Yet nothing
prevents them from proceeding from some elective habit,
in which case they assume the character of a virtue.

Q. 30. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 396

Fourth Article,
whether mercy is the greatest of the virtues ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that mercy is the greatest of the
virtues. For the worship of God seems a most virtuous
act. But mercy is preferred before the worship of God,
according to Os. vi. 6 and Matth. xii. 7 : I have desired mercy
and not sacrifice. Therefore mercy is the greatest virtue.

Ohj. 2.. Further, On the words of i Tim. iv. 8: Godliness
is profitable to all things, a gloss says: The sum total of a
Christian's rule of life consists in mercy and godliness. Now
the Christian rule of life embraces every virtue. Therefore
the sum total of all virtues is contained in mercy.

Obj. 3. Further, Virtue is that which makes its subject
good, according to the Philosopher. Therefore the more
a virtue makes a man like God, the better is that virtue:
since man is the better for being more like God. Now
this is chiefly the result of mercy, since of God is it said
(Ps. cxliv. 9) that His tender mercies are over all His works,
and (Luke vi. 36) Our Lord said: Be ye . . . merciful, as
your Father also is merciful. Therefore mercy is the greatest
of virtues.

On the contrary, The Apostle after saying (Col. iii. 12):
Put ye on ... as the elect of God . . . the bowels of mercy,
etc., adds [verse 14): Above all things have charity. There-
fore mercy is not the greatest of virtues.

/ answer that, A virtue may take precedence of others
in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in comparison with its
subject. In itself, mercy takes precedence of other virtues,
for it belongs to mercy to be bountiful to others, and, what
is more, to succour others in their wants, which pertains
chiefly to one who stands above. Hence mercy is accounted
as being proper to God: and therein His omnipotence is
declared to be chiefly manifested.*
On the other hand, with regard to its subject, mercy is

* Collect, Tenth Sunday after Pentecost.

397 MERCY Q. 30. Art. 4

not the greatest virtue, unless that subject be greater than
all others, surpassed by none and excelling all:* since for
him that has anyone above him it is better to be
united to that which is above than to supply the defect of
that which is beneath. Hence, as regards man, who has
God above him, charity which unites him to God, is greater
than mercy, whereby he supplies the defects of his neighbour.
But of all the virtues which relate to our neighbour, mercy
is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since
it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the
defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient.

Reply Obj. i. We worship God by external sacrifices
and gifts, not for His own profit, but for that of ourselves
and our neighbour. For He needs not our sacrifices, but
wishes them to be offered to Him, in order to arouse our
devotion and to profit our neighbour. Hence mercy, where-
by we supply others' defects is a sacrifice more acceptable
to Him, as conducing more directly to our neighbour's
well-being, according to Heb. xiii. 16 : Do not forget to do
good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favour is
obtained.

Reply Obj. 2. The sum total of the Christian religion
consists in mercy, as regards external works : but the inward
love of charity, whereby we are united to God prepon-
derates over both love and mercy for our neighbour.

Reply Obj. 3. Charity likens us to God by uniting us to
Him in the bond of love: wherefore it surpasses charity
which likens us to God as regards similarity of works.

* The quality of mercy is not strained

3K * * * j|c DC iti

'Tis mightiest in the mightiest : it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.

Merchant of Venice, Act IV., Sc. i.

QUESTION XXXI.
OF BENEFICENCE.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the outward acts or effects of charity,
(i) Beneficence, (2) Almsdeeds, which are a part of bene-
ficence, (3) Fraternal correction, which is a kind of alms.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(i) Whether beneficence is an act of charity ? (2) Whether
we ought to be beneficent to all ? (3) Whether we ought
to be more beneficent to those who are more closely united
to us ? (4) Whether beneficence is a special virtue ?

First Article,
whether beneficence is an act of charity ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that beneficence is not an act of
charity. For charity is chiefly directed to God. Now we
cannot benefit God, according to Job xxxv. 7: What shalt
thou give Him ? or what shall He receive of thy hand ?
Therefore beneficence is not an act of charity.

Ohj. 2. Further, Beneficence consists chiefly in making
gifts. But this belongs to liberality. Therefore bene-
ficence is an act of liberality and not of charity.

Ohj. 3. Further, What a man gives, he gives either as being
due, or as not due. But a benefit conferred as being due
belongs to justice, while a benefit conferred as not due, is
gratuitous, and in this respect is an act of mercy. Therefore
every benefit conferred is either an act of justice, or an
act of mercy. Therefore it is not an act of charity.

398

399 BENEFICENCE Q. 31. Art. i

On the contrary, Charity is a kind of friendship, as
stated above (Q. XXIII., A. i). Now the Philosopher
reckons among the acts of friendship {Ethic, ix.) doing
good, i.e. being beneficent, to one's friends. Therefore it
is an act of charity to do good to others.

/ answer that, Beneficence simply means doing good to
someone. This good may be considered in two ways,
first under the general aspect of good, and this belongs
to beneficence in general, and is an act of friendship, and,
consequently, of charity: because the act of love includes
goodwill whereby a man wishes his friend well, as stated
above (Q. XXIII., A. i: Q. XXVII. , A. 2). Now the will
carries into effect if possible, the things it wills, so that, con-
sequently, the result of an act of love is that a man is bene-
ficent to his friend. Therefore benefixcence in its general
acceptation is an act of friendship or charity.

But if the good which one man does another, be con-
sidered under some special aspect of good, then benefi-
cence will assume a special character and will belong to
some special virtue.

Reply Obj. 1. According to Dionysius {Div. Nom. iv.),
love moves those, whom it unites, to a mutual relationship :
it turns the inferior to the superior to be perfected thereby ;
it moves the superior to watch over the inferior : and in this
respect beneficence is an effect of love. Hence it is not
for us to benefit God, but to honour Him by obeying Him,
while it is for Him, out of His love, to bestow good things
on us.

Reply Obj. 2. Two things must be observed in the be-
stowal of gifts. One is the thing given outwardly, while the
other is the inward passion that a man has in the delight
of riches. It belongs to liberality to moderate this inward
passion, so as to avoid excessive desire and love for riches;
for this makes a man more ready to part with his wealth.
Hence, if a man makes some great gift, while yet
desiring to keep it for himself, his is not a liberal giving.
On the other hand, as regards the outward gift, the act
of beneficence belongs in general to friendship or charity.

Q. 31. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 400

Hence it does not detract from a man's friendship, if,
through love, he give his friend something he would like
to keep for himself ; rather does this prove the perfection of
his friendship.

Reply Obj. 3. Just as friendship or charity sees, in the
benefit bestowed, the general aspect of good, so does justice
see therein the aspect of debt, while pity considers the
relieving of distress or defect.

Second Article,
whether we ought to do good to all ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we are not bound to do good
to all. For Augustine says [De Doctr. Christ, i.) that we
are unable to do good to everyone. Now virtue does not
incline one to the impossible. Therefore it is not neces-
sary to do good to all.

Obj. 2. Further, It is written (Ecclus. xii. 5): Give to
the good, and receive not a sinner. But many men are
sinners. Therefore we need not do good to all.

Obj. 3. Further, Charity dealeth not perversely (i Cor.
xiii. 4). Now to do good to some is to deal perversely:
for instance if one were to do good to an enemy of the
common weal, or if one were to do good to an excom-
municated person, since, by doing so, he would be holding
communion with him. Therefore, since beneficence is an
act of charity, we ought not to do good to all.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. vi. 10) : Whilst
we have time, let us work good to all men.

I answer that, As stated above (A. i, ad i), beneficence
is an effect of love in so far as love moves the superior
to watch over the inferior. Now degrees among men are
not unchangeable as among angels, because men are sub-
ject to many failings, so that he who is superior in one
respect, is or may be inferior in another. Therefore,
since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also
should extend to all, but according as time and place require :

401 BENEFICENCE Q. 31. Art. 3

because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to
their due circumstances.

Reply Obj. i. Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do
good to every single one: yet it is true of each individual
that one may be bound to do good to him in some par-
ticular case. Hence charity binds us, though not actually
doing good to someone, to be prepared in mind to do good
to anyone if we have time to spare. There is however a
good that we can do to all, if not to each individual, at
least to all in general, as when we pray for all, for
unbelievers as well as for the faithful.

Reply Obj. 2. In a sinner there are two things, his guilt
and his nature. Accordingly we are bound to succour
the sinner as to the maintenance of his nature, but not
so as to abet his sin, for this would be to do evil rather
than good.

Reply Obj. 3. The excommunicated and the enemies of
the commonweal are deprived of all beneficence, in so
far as this prevents them from doing evil deeds. Yet if
their nature be in urgent need of succour lest it fail, we
are bound to help them: for instance, if they be in danger
of death through hunger or thirst, or suffer some like distress,
unless this be according to the order of justice.

Third Article.

whether we ought to do good to those rather
who are more closely united to us ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that we are not bound to do good
to those rather who are more closely united to us. For
it is written (Luke xiv. 12): When thou makest a dinner or
a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kins-
men. Now these are the most closely united to us. There-
fore we are not bound to do good to those rather who are
more closely united to us, but preferably to strangers and
to those who are in want: hence the text goes on: But,
when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, etc.

II. ii, I 26

Q. 31. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 402

Ohj. 2. Further, To help another in the battle is an act
of very great goodness. But a soldier on the battlefield
is bound to help a fellow-soldier who is a stranger rather
than a kinsman who is a foe. Therefore in doing acts
of kindness we are not bound to give the preference to
those who are most closely united to us.

Ohj. 3. Further, We should pay what is due before con-
ferring gratuitous favours. But it is a man's duty to be
good to those who have been good to him. Therefore we
ought to do good to our benefactors rather than to those
who are closely united to us.

Ohj. 4. Further, A man ought to love his parents more
than his children, as stated above (Q. XXVI., A. 9). Yet
a man ought to be more beneficent to his children, since
neither ought the children to lay up for the parents, accord-
ing to 2 Cor. xii. 14. Therefore we are not bound to
be more beneficent to those who are more closely united
to us.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.):
Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those
chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circum-
stance, hy a kind of chance are more closely united to us.

I answer that, Grace and virtue imitate the order of
nature, which is established by Divine wisdom. Now
the order of nature is such that every natural agent pours
forth its activity first and most of all on the things which
are nearest to it: thus fire heats most what is next to it.
In like manner God pours forth the gifts of His goodness
first and most plentifully on the substances which are
nearest to Him, as Dionysius declares {Coel. Hier. vii.).
But the bestowal of benefits is an act of charity towards
others. Therefore we ought to be most beneficent towards
those who are most closely connected with us.

Now one man's connexion with another may be measured
in reference to the various matters in which men are engaged
together; (thus the intercourse of kinsmen is in natural
matters, that of fellow-citizens is in civic matters, that of
the faithful is in spiritual matters, and so forth): and

403 BENEFICENCE Q. 31. Art. 3

various benefits should be conferred in various ways accord-
ing to these various connexions, because we ought in pre-
ference to bestow on each one such benefits as pertain to
the matter in which, speaking simply, he is most closely
connected with us. And yet this may vary according to
the various requirements of time, place, or matter in hand :
because in certain cases one ought, for instance, to succour
a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one's own
father, if he is not in such urgent need.

Reply Obj. 1. Our Lord did not absolutely forbid us to
invite our friends and kinsmen to eat with us, but to invite
them so that they may invite us in return, since that
would be an act not of charity but of cupidity. The case
may occur, however, that one ought rather to invite
strangers, on account of their greater want. For it must
be understood that, other things being equal, one ought
to succour those rather who are most closely connected
with us. And if of two, one be more closely connected,
and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide,
by any general rule, which of them we ought to help
rather than the other, since there are various degrees of
want as well as of connexion: and the matter requires the
judgment of a prudent man.

Reply Obj. 2. The common good of many is more God-
like than the good of an individual. Wherefore it is a
virtuous action for a man to endanger even his own life,
either for the spiritual or for the temporal common good
of his country. Since therefore men engage together in
warlike acts in order to safeguard the common weal, the
soldier who with this in view succours his comrade, suc-
cours him not as a private individual, but with a view to
the welfare of his country as a whole : wherefore it is not a
matter for wonder if a stranger be preferred to one who is
a blood relation.

Reply Obj. 3. A thing may be due in two ways. There
is one which should be reckoned, not among the goods of
the debtor, but rather as belonging to the person to whom
it is due: for instance, a man may have another's goods,

Q. 31. Art. 3 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 404

whether in money or in kind, either because he has stolen
them, or because he has received them on loan or in deposit,
or in some other way. In this case a man ought to pay what
he owes, rather than benefit his connexions out of it, unless
perchance the case be so urgent that it would be lawful
for him to take another's property in order to relieve the
one who is in need. Yet, again, this would not apply if
the creditor were in equal distress: in which case, however,
the claims on either side would have to be weighed with
regard to such other conditions as a prudent man would
take into consideration, because, on account of the different
particular cases, as the Philosopher states {Ethic, ix.), it is
impossible to lay down a general rule.

The other kind of due is one which is reckoned among
the goods of the debtor and not of the creditor; for in-
stance, a thing may be due, not because justice requires
it, but on account of a certain moral equity, as in the case
of benefits received gratis. Now no benefactor confers a
benefit equal to that which a man receives from his parents :
wherefore in paying back benefits received, we should give
the first place to our parents before all others, unless, on
the other side, there be such weightier motives, as need or
some other circumstance, for instance the common good of
the Church or state. In other cases we must take into
account the connexion and the benefit received; and here
again no general rule can be laid down.

Reply Obj. 4. Parents are like superiors, and so a parent's
love tends to conferring benefits, while the children's love
tends to honour their parents. Nevertheless in a case of
extreme urgency it would be lawful to abandon one's
children rather than one's parents, to abandon whom it is
by no means lawful, on account of the obligation we lie
under towards them for the benefits we have received
from them, as the Philosopher states {Ethic, viii.).

405 BENEFICENCE Q. 31. Art. 4

Fourth Article,
whether beneficence is a special virtue ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that beneficence is a special virtue.
For precepts are directed to virtue, since lawgivers purpose
to make men virtuous [Ethic, i., ii.). Now beneficence
and love are prescribed as distinct from one another, for it
is written (Matth. v. 44) : Love your enemies, do good to
them that hate you. Therefore beneficence is a virtue dis-
tinct from charity.

Ohj. 2. Further, Vices are opposed to virtues. Now
there are opposed to beneficence certain vices whereby a
hurt is inflicted on our neighbour, for instance, rapine,
theft and so forth. Therefore beneficence is a special
virtue.

Ohj. 3. Further, Charity is not divided into several
species: whereas there would seem to be several kinds of
beneficence, according to the various kinds of benefits.
Therefore beneficence is a distinct virtue from charity.

On the contrary, The internal and the external act do not
require different virtues. Now beneficence and goodwill
differ only as external and internal act, since beneficence
is the execution of goodwill. Therefore as goodwill is not
a distinct virtue from charity, so neither is beneficence.

/ answer that. Virtues differ according to the different
aspects of their objects. Now the formal aspect of the
object of charity and of beneficence is the s?.me, since both
virtues regard the common aspect of good, as explained
above (A. i). Wherefore beneficence is not a distinct
virtue from charity, but denotes an act of charity.

Reply Ohj. i. Precepts are given, not about habits but
about acts of virtue: wherefore distinction of precept
denotes distinction, not of habits, but of acts.

Reply Ohj. 2. Even as all benefits conferred on our neigh-
bour, if wc consider them under the common aspect of
good, are to be traced to love, so all hurts considered under

Q. 31. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 406

the common aspect of evil, are to be traced to hatred. But
if we consider these same things under certain special aspects
of good or of evil, they are to be traced to certain special
virtues or vices, and in this way also there are various kinds
of benefits.

Hence the Reply to the Third Objection is evident.

QUESTION XXXIl.
OF ALMSDEEDS.

{In Ten Articles.)

We must now consider almsdeeds, under which head
there are ten points of inquiry: (i) Whether almsgiving
is an act of charity ? (2) Of the different kinds of alms.

(3) Which alms are of greater account, spiritual or corporal ?

(4) Whether corporal alms have a spiritual effect ?

(5) Whether the giving of alms is a matter of precept ?

(6) Whether corporal alms should be given out of the
things we need ? (7) Whether corporal alms should be
given out of ill-gotten goods ? (8) Who can give alms ?
(9) To whom should we give alms ? (10) How should alms
be given ?

First Article,
whether almsgiving is an act of charity ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that almsgiving is not an act of
charity. For without charity one cannot do acts of charity.
Now it is possible to give alms without having charity,
according to i Cor. xiii. y. If I should distribute all my
goods to feed the poor . . . and have not charity, it profiteth
me nothing. Therefore almsgiving is not an act of charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Almsdeeds are reckoned among works
of satisfaction, according to Dan. iv. 24: Redeem thou thy
sins with alms. Now satisfaction is an act of justice.
Therefore almsgiving is an act of justice and not of charity.

Obj. 3. Further, The offering of sacrifices to (lod is an
act of religion. But almsgiving is offering a sacrifice to

407

Q. 32. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA *' 408

God, according to Heb. xiii. 16 : Do not forget to do good
and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained.
Therefore almsgiving is not an act of charity, but of religion.

Obj. 4. Further, The Philosopher says {Ethic, iv.) that
to give for a good purpose is an act of liberality. Now
this is especially true of almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving
is not an act of charity.

071 the contrary, It is written (i John iii. 17): He that
hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother
in need, and shall put up his bowels from him, how doth the
charity of God abide in him ?

I answer that. External acts belong to that virtue which
regards the motive for doing those acts. Now the motive
for giving alms is to relieve one who is in need. Where-
fore some have defined alms as being a deed whereby
something is given to the needy, out of compassion and for
God's sake, which motive belongs to mercy, as stated above
(Q. XXX., AA. I, 2). Hence it is clear that almsgiving
is, properly speaking, an act of mercy. This appears in its
very name, for in Greek {iXerjfioo-wr]) it is derived from
having mercy {eXeeLv) even as the Latin miser alio is. And
since mercy is an effect of charity, as shown above
(Q. XXX., A. 2, A. 13, Obj. 3), it follows that almsgiving
is an act of charity through the medium of mercy.

Reply Obj. i. An act of virtue may be taken in two
ways: first materially, thus an act of justice is to do what
is just; and such an act of virtue can be without the virtue,
since many, without having the habit of justice, do what
is just, led by the natural light of reason, or through fear,
or in the hope of gain. Secondly, we speak of a thing
being an act of justice formally, and thus an act of justice
is to do what is just, in the same way as a just man, i.e.
with readiness and delight, and such an act of virtue
cannot be without the virtue.

Accordingly almsgiving can be materially without charity,
but to give alms formally, i.e. for God's sake, with dehght
and readiness, and altogether as one ought, is not possible
without charity.

409 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 2

Reply Ohj. 2. Nothing hinders the proper elicited act of
one virtue being commanded by another virtue as com-
manding it and directing it to this other virtue's end.
It is in this way that almsgiving is reckoned among works
of satisfaction in so far as pity for the one in distress is
directed to the satisfaction for his sin; and in so far as it
is directed to placate God, it has the character of a sacrifice,
and thus it is commanded by religion.

Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection is evident.

Reply Ohj. 4. Almsgiving belongs to liberality, in so far
as liberality removes an obstacle to that act, which might
arise from excessive love of riches, the result of which
is that one clings to them more than one ought.

Second Article.

whether the different kinds of almsdeeds are
suitably enumerated ?

We proceed then to the Second Article :

Objection i. It seems that the different kinds of alms-
deeds are unsuitably enumerated. For we reckon seven
corporal almsdeeds, namely, to feed the hungry, to give
drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to harbour the
harbourless, to visit the sick, to ransom the captive, to
bury the dead ; all of which are expressed in the following
verse :

To visit, to quench or to feed, to ransom, clothe, harbour or bury.

Again we reckon also seven spiritual alms, namely, to
instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, to comfort
the sorrowful, to reprove the sinner, to forgive injuries,
to bear with those who trouble and annoy us, and to pray
for all, which are all contained in the following verse:

To counsel, reprove or console, to pardon, forbear, or to pray,

yet so that counsel includes both advice and instruction.
And it seems that these various almsdeeds are un-
suitably enumerated. For the purpose of almsdeeds is
to succour our neighbour. But a dead man profits nothing

Q. 32. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 410

by being buried, else Our Lord would not have spoken
truly when He said (Matth. x. 28)*: Be not afraid
of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that
they can do. This explains why Our Lord, in enumerating
the works of mercy, made no mention of the burial of the
dead (Matth. xxv. 35, 36). Therefore it seems that these
almsdeeds are unsuitably enumerated.

Ohj. 2. Further, As stated above (A. i), the purpose of
giving alms is to relieve our neighbour's need. Now there
are many needs of human life other than those mentioned
above, for instance, a blind man needs a leader, a lame
man needs someone to lean on, a poor man needs riches.
.Therefore these almsdeeds are unsuitably enumerated.

Ohj. 3. Further, Almsgiving is a work of mercy. But
the reproof of the wrong-doer savours, apparently, of
severity rather than of mercy. Therefore it ought not
to be reckoned among the spiritual almsdeeds.

Ohj. 4. Further, Almsgiving is intended for the supply
of a defect. But no man is without the defect of ignorance
in some matter or other. Therefore, apparently, each one
ought to instruct anyone who is ignorant of what he knows
himself.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. in Ev. ix.) : Let him
that hath understanding heware lest he withhold his knowledge;
let him that hath abundance of wealth, watch lest he slacken
his merciful bounty ; let him who is a servant to art be most
solicitous to share his skill and its profit with his neighbour ;
let him who has an opportunity of speaking with the wealthy,
fear lest he be condemned for retaining his talent, if when
he has the chance he plead not with him the cause of the poor.
Therefore the aforesaid almsdeeds are suitably enumerated
in respect of those things whereof men have abundance
or insufficiency.

/ answer that, The aforesaid distinction of almsdeeds is

suitably taken from the various needs of our neighbour:

some of which affect the soul, and are relieved by spiritual

almsdeeds, while others affect the body, and are relieved

* The quotation is from Luke xii. 4.

411 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 2

by corporal almsdeeds. For corporal need occurs either
during this life or afterwards. If it occurs during this
life, it is either a common need in respect of things needed
by all, or it is a special need occurring through some acci-
dent supervening. In the first case, the need is either
internal or external. Internal need is twofold: one which
is relieved by solid food, viz. hunger, in respect of which
we have to feed the hungry ; while the other is relieved by
liquid food, viz. thirst, and in respect of this we have to give
drink to the thirsty. The common need with regard to
external help is twofold; one in respect of clothing, and
as to this we have to clothe the naked : while the other is in
respect of a dwelling place, and as to this we have to
harbour the harbourless. Again if the need be special, it
is either the result of an internal cause, like sickness, and
then we have to visit the sick, or it results from an external
cause, and then we have to ransom the captive. After
this life we give burial to the dead.

In like manner spiritual needs are relieved by spiritual
acts in two ways, first by asking for help from God, and
in this respect we have prayer, whereby one man prays
for others; secondly, by giving human assistance, and this
in three ways. First, in order to relieve a deficiency on
the part of the intellect, and if this deficiency be in the
speculative intellect, the remedy is applied by instructing,
and if in the practical intellect, the remedy is applied by
counselling. Secondly, there may be a deficiency on the
part of the appetitive power, especially by way of sorrow,
which is remedied by comforting. Thirdly, the deficiency
may be due to an inordinate act ; and this may be the
subject of a threefold consideration. First, in respect of
the sinner, in as much as the sin proceeds from his inordin-
ate will, and thus the remedy takes the form of reproof
Secondly, in respect of the person sinned against; and if
the sin be committed against ourselves, we apply the remedy
by pardoning the injury, while, if it be committed against
God or our neighbour, it is not in our power to pardon, as
Jerome observes {Super MattJi. xviii. 15). Thirdly, in respect

Q. 32. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 412

of the result of the inordinate act, on account of which the
sinner is an annoyance to those who live with him, even
beside his intention; in which case the remedy is applied
by bearing with him, especially with regard to those who sin
out of weakness, according to Rem. xv. i : We that are
stronger, ought to hear the infirmities of the weak, and not
only as regards their being infirm and consequently trouble-
some on account of their unruly actions, but also by bearing
any other burdens of theirs with them, according to Gal.
vi. 2 : Bear ye one another^ s burdens.

Reply Obj. i. Burial does not profit a dead man as though
his body could be capable of perception after death. In
this sense Our Lord said that those who kill the body have
no more that they can do ; and for this reason He did not
mention the burial of the dead with the other works of mercy,
but those only which are more clearly necessary. Never-
theless it does concern the deceased what is done with
his body : both that he may live in the memory of man whose
respect he forfeits if he remain without burial, and as regards
a man's fondness for his own body while he was yet living,
a fondness which kindly persons should imitate after his
death. It is thus that some are praised for burying the
dead; viz. Tobias, and those who buried Our Lord (Cf.
Augustine, De Cura pro mort, iii.).

Reply Obj. 2. All other needs are reduced to these, for
blindness and lameness are kinds of sickness, so that to
lead the blind, and to support the lame, come to the same
as visiting the sick. In like manner to assist a man against
any distress that is due to an extrinsic cause comes to the
same as the ransom of captives. And the wealth with
which we relieve the poor is sought merely for the purpose
of relieving the aforesaid needs : hence there was no reason
for special mention of this particular need.

Reply Obj. 3. The reproof of the sinner,- as to the exercise
of the act of reproving, seems to imply the severity of jus-
tice, but, as to the intention of the reprover, who wishes to
free a man from the evil of sin, it is an act of mercy and
lovingkindness, according to Prov. xxvii. 6: Better are

413 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 3

the wounds of a friend, than the deceitful kisses of an
enemy.

Reply Ohj. 4. Nescience is not always a defect, but only
when it is about what one ought to know, and it is a part
of almsgiving to supply this defect by instruction. In
doing this however we should observe the due circum-
stances of persons, place and time, even as in other virtuous
acts.

Third Article.

whether corporal alms are of more account than

spiritual alms ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that corporal alms are of more
account than spiritual alms. For it is more praiseworthy
to give an alms to one who is in greater want, since an alms-
deed is to be praised because it relieves one who is in need.
Now the body which is relieved by corporal alms, is by
nature more needy than the spirit which is relieved by
spiritual alms. Therefore corporal alms are of more
account .

Ohj. 2. Further, an alms is less praiseworthy and meritorious
if the kindness is compensated, wherefore Our Lord says
(Luke xiv. 12) : When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call
not thy neighbours who are rich, lest perhaps they also invite
thee again. Now there is always compensation in spiritual
almsdeeds, since he who prays for another, profits thereby,
according to Ps. xxxv. 13: My prayer shall be turned into
my bosom : and he who teaches another, makes progress in
knowledge, which cannot be said of corporal almsdeeds.
Therefore corporal almsdeeds are of more account than
spiritual almsdeeds.

Obj. 3. Further, an alms is to be commended if the needy
one is comforted by it : wherefore it is written (Job xxxi.
20) : // his sides have not blessed me, and the Apostle says to
Philemon (verse 7) : The bowels of the saints have been re-
freshed by thee, brother. Now a corporal alms is sometimes
more welcome to a needy man than a spiritual alms. There-

Q. 32. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 414

fore bodily almsdeeds are of more account than spiritual
almsdeeds.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte,
i.) on the words, Give to him that asketh of thee (Matth. v.
42) : You should give so as to injure neither yourself nor
another, and when you refuse what another asks, you must
not lose sight of the claims of justice, and send him away empty ;
at times indeed you will give what is better than what is asked
for, if you reprove him that asks unjustly. Now reproof is
a spiritual alms. Therefore spiritual almsdeeds are prefer-
able to corporal almsdeeds.

/ answer that, There are two ways of comparing these
almsdeeds. First, simply; and in this respect, spiritual
almsdeeds hold the first place, for three reasons. First, be-
cause the offering is more excellent, since it is a spiritual
gift, which surpasses a corporal gift, according to Prov.
iv. 2 : / will give you a good gift, forsake not My Law. Secondly,
on account of the object succoured, because the spirit is
more excellent than the body, wherefore, even as a man in
looking after himself, ought to look to his soul more than
to his body, so ought he in looking after his neighbour,
whom he ought to love as himself. Thirdly, as regards the
acts themselves by which our neighbour is succoured, be-
cause spiritual acts are more excellent than corporal acts,
which are, in a fashion, servile.

Secondly, we may compare them with regard to some
particular case, when some corporal alms excels some spiri-
tual alms : for instance, a man in hunger is to be fed rather
than instructed, and as the Philosopher observes (Top. iii.),
for a needy man money is better than philosophy, although
the latter is better simply.

Reply Obj. i. It is better to give to one who is in greater
want, other things being equal, but if he who is less needy
is better, and is in want of better things, it is better to give
to him : and it is thus in the case in point.

Reply Obj. 2. Compensation does not detract from merit
and praise if it be not intended, even as human glory, if not
intended,]^does not detract from virtue. Thus Sallust says

415 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 4

of Cato (Catilin.) in comparing M. Cato and C. Caesar, that
the less he sought fame, the more he became famous : and thus
it is with spiritual almsdeeds.

Nevertheless the intention of gaining spiritual goods does
not detract from merit, as the intention of gaining corpora
goods.

Reply Ohj. 3. The merit of an almsgiver depends on that
in which the will of the recipient rests reasonably, and not
on that in which it rests when it is inordinate.

Fourth Article,
whether corporal almsdeeds have a spiritual effect ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that corporal almsdeeds have not a
spiritual effect. For no effect exceeds its cause. But
spiritual goods exceed corporal goods. Therefore corporal
almsdeeds have no spiritual effect.

Obj 2. Further, the sin of simony consists in giving the
corporal for the spiritual, and it is to be utterly avoided.
Therefore one ought not to give alms in order to receive a
spiritual effect

Obj. 3. Further, to multiply the cause is to multiply the
effect. If therefore corporal almsdeeds cause a spiritual
effect, the greater the alms, the greater the spiritual profit,
which is contrary to what we read (Luke xxi.) of the widow
who cast two brass mites into the treasury, and in Our Lord's
own words cast in more than . . . all. Therefore bodily
almsdeeds have no spiritual effect.

Oft the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. xvii. 18) : The alms
of a man . . . shall preserve the grace of a man as the apple
of the eye.

I answer that. Corporal almsdeeds may be considered in
three ways. First, with regard to their substance, and in
this way they have merely a corporal effect, inasmuch as
they supply our neighbour's corporal needs. Secondly,
they may be considered with regard to their cause, in so far
as a man gives a corporal alms out of love for God and his

Q. 32. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 416

neighbour, and in this respect they bring forth a spiritual
fruit, according to Ecclus. xxix. 13, 14: Lose thy money for
thy brother . . . place thy treasure in the commandments of
the Most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold.

Thirdly, with regard to the effect, and in this way again,
they have a spiritual fruit, inasmuch as our neighbour, who
is succoured by a corporal alms, is moved to pray for his
benefactor; wherefore the above text goes on {verse 15):
Shut up alms in the heart of the poor, and it shall obtain help
for thee from all evil.

Reply Obj. i. This argument considers corporal almsdeeds
as to their substance.

Reply Obj. 2. He who gives an alms does not intend to
buy a spiritual thing with a corporal thing, for he knows
that spiritual things infinitely surpass corporal things, but
he intends to merit a spiritual fruit through the love of
charity.

Reply Obj. 3. The widow who gave less in quantity, gave
more in proportion ; and thus we gather that the fervour of
her charity, whence corporal almsdeeds derive their spiri-
tual efhcacy, was greater.

Fifth Article,
whether almsgiving is a matter of precept ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that almsgiving is not a matter of
precept. For the counsels are distinct from the precepts.
Now almsgiving is a matter of counsel, according to Dan.
iv. 24: Let my counsel be acceptable to the King ; (Vulg., —
to thee, and) redeem thou thy sins with alms. Therefore alms-
giving is not a matter of precept.

Obj 2. Further, it is lawful for everyone to use and to
keep what is his own. Yet by keeping it he will not give
alms. Therefore it is lawful not to give alms: and conse-
quently almsgiving is not a matter of precept.

Obj. 3. Further, whatever is a matter of precept binds the
transgressor at some time or other under pain of mortal sin,

417 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 5

because positive precepts are binding for some fixed time.
Therefore, if almsgiving were a matter of precept, it would
be possible to point to some fixed time when a man would
commit a mortal sin unless he gave an alms. But it does
not appear how this can be so, because it can always be
deemed probable that the person in need can be relieved in
some other way, and that what we would spend in alms-
giving might be needful to ourselves either now or in some
future time. Therefore it seems that almsgiving is not a
matter of precept.

Ohj. 4. Further, Every commandment is reducible to the
precepts of the Decalogue. But these precepts contain no
reference to almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is not a
matter of precept.

On the contrary, No man is punished eternally for omitting
to do what is not a matter of precept. But some are pun-
ished eternally for omitting to give alms, as is clear from
Matth. XXV. 41-^43. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of
precept.

I answer that, As love of our neighbour is a matter of
precept, whatever is a necessary condition to the love of our
neighbour is a matter of precept also. Now the love of our
neighbour requires that not only should we be our neighbour's
well-wishers, but also his well-doers, according to i John
iii. 18: Let us not love in word, nor in tongue, hut in deed, and
in truth. Now in order to be a person's well-wisher and
well-doer, we ought to succour his needs; and this is done
by almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.

Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it
follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept, in
so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it
is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands
that we should take into consideration something on
the part of the giver, and something on the part of the
recipient. On the part of the giver, it must be noted that
he should give of his svuplus, according to Luke xi. 41:
That which remaincth, give alms This surplus is to be taken
in reference not only to himself, so as to denote what is

II. ii. I 27

g. 32. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 418

unnecessary to the individual, but also in reference to those
of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression
necessary to the person * taking the word person as expressive
of dignity). Because each one must first of all look after
himself and then after those over whom he has charge, and
afterwards with what remains relieve the needs of others.
Thus nature first, by its nutritive power, takes what it
requires for the upkeep of one's own body, and afterwards
yields the residue for the formation of another by the power
of generation.

On the part of the recipient it is requisite that he should
be in need, else there would be no reason for giving him
alms: yet since it is not possible for one individual to relieve
the needs of all, we are not bound to relieve all who are in
need, but only those who could not be succoured if we did
not succour them. For in such cases the words of Ambrose
apply (Cf. Canon Pasce, dist. Ixxxvi.), Feed him that dies of
hunger; ifthoii hast not fed him, thou hast slain him. Accord-
ingly we are bound to give alms of our surplus, as also to
give alms to one whose need is extreme: otherwise alms-
giving, like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.

Reply Ohj. i. Daniel spoke to a king who was not subject
to God's Law, wherefore such things as were prescribed by
the Law which he did not profess, had to be counselled to
him. Or he may have been speaking in reference to a case
in which almsgiving was not a matter of precept.

Reply Ohj. 2. The temporal goods which God grants us,
are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they
belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able
to succour out of what we have over and above our needs.
Hence Basil says f: Ij you acknowledge them, viz., youi tem-
poral goods, as coming from God, is He unjust because He
apportions them unequally ? Why are you rich while another
is poor, unless it he that you may have the merit of a good
stewardship, and he the reward of patience ? It is the hungry
man^s hread that you withhold, the naked man^s cloak that you
have stored away, the shoe of the harefoot that you have left to rot,

* The official necessities of a person in position,
j Horn, super Luc. xii. 18,

419 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32 Art. 6

the money of the needy that you have buried underground :
and so you injure as jnany as you anight help. Ambrose
expresses himself in the same way.

Reply Ohj. 3. There is a time when we sin mortally if
we omit to give alms; on the part of the recipient when
we see that his need is evident and urgent, and that he is
not likely to be succoured otherwise — on the part of the
giver, when he has superfluous goods, which he does not
need for the time being, as far as he can judge with proba-
bility. Nor need he consider every case that may possibly
occur in the future, for this would be to think about the
morrow, which Our Lord forbade us to do (Matth. vi. 34),
but he should judge what is superfluous and what necessary,
according as things probably and generally occur.

Reply Ohj. 4. All succour given to our neighbour is re-
duced to the precept about honouring our parents. For
thus does the Apostle interpret it (i Tim. iv. 8) where he
says : Dutifulness * (Douay, — Godliness) is profitable to all
things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which
is to come, and he says this because the precept about honour-
ing our parents contains the promise, that thou mayest be
longlived upon the land (Exod. xx. 12) : and dutifulness
comprises all kinds of almsgiving.

Sixth Article,
whether one ought to give alms out of what one

NEEDS ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that one ought not to give alms
out of what one needs. For the order of charity should be
observed not only as regards the effect of our benefactions
but also as regards our interior affections. Now it is a sin
to contravene the order of charity, because this order is a
matter of precept. Since, then, the order of chaiity requires
that a man should love himself more than his neighbour,
it seems that he would sin if he deprived himself of what he
needed, in order to succour his neighbour.

* Pietas, whence our English word Piiy. Cf. d^soinf. Q. CI., A. 7. ^

Q. 32. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 420

Obj. 2. Further, Whoever gives away what he needs him-
self, squanders his own substance, and that is to be a prodi-
gal, according to the Philosopher {Ethic, iv). But no sinful
deed should be done. Therefore we should not give alms
out of what we need.

Obj. 3. Further, The Apostle says (i Tim. v. 8): // any
man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his
house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Now if a man gives of what he needs for himself or for his
charge, he seems to detract fiom the care he should have
for himself or his charge. Therefore it seems that whoever
gives alms from what he needs, sins gravely.

On the contrary. Our Lord said (Matth. xix. 21) : If thou
wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor.
Now he that gives all he has to the poor, gives not only
what he needs not, but also what he needs. Therefore a
man may give alms out of what he needs.

1 answer that, A thing is necessary in two ways: first,
because without it something is impossible, and it is alto-
gether wrong to give alms out of what is necessary to us
in this sense; for instance, if a man found himself in the
presence of a case of urgency, and had merely sufficient to
support himself and his children, or others under his charge,
he would be throwing away his life and that of others if he
were to give away in alms, what was then necessary to him.
Yet I say this without prejudice to such a case as might
happen, supposing that by depriving himself of necessaries
a man might help a great personage, and a support of the
Church or State, since it would be a praiseworthy act to
endanger one's life and the lives of those who are under our
charge for the delivery of such a person, since the common
good is to be preferred to one's own.

vSecondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if a man cannot
without it live in keeping with his social station, as regards
either himself or those of whom he has charge. The neces-
sary considered thus is not an invariable quantity, for one
might add much more to a man's property, and yet not go
beyond what he needs in this way, or one might take much

421 ALMSDEEDS Q- 32. Art. 7

from him, and he would still have sufficient for the decencies
of life in keeping with his own position. Accordingly it is
good to give alms of this kind of necessary; and it is a matter
not of precept but of counsel. Yet it would be inordinate to
deprive oneself of one's own, in order to give to others to such
an extent that the residue would be insufiftcient for one to live
in keeping with one's station and the ordinary occurrences of
life : for no man ought to live unbecomingly. There are,
however, three exceptions to the above rule. The first is
when a man changes his state of life, for instance, by enter-
ing religion, for then he gives away all his possessions for
Christ's sake, and does the deed of perfection by transferring
himself to another state. Secondly, when that which he
deprives himself of, though it be required for the decencies
of life, can nevertheless easily be recovered, so that he does
not suffer extreme inconvenience. Thirdly, when he is in
presence of extreme indigence in an individual, or great
need on the part of the common weal. For in such cases it
woidd seem praiseworthy to forego the requirements of one's
station, in order to provide for a greater need.

The objections may be easily solved from what has been
said.

Seventh Article,
whether one may give alms out of ill-gotten

GOODS ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that one may give alms out of
ill-gotten goods. For it is written (Luke xvi. 9) : Make
unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity. Now mammon
signifies riches. Therefore it is lawful to make unto oneself
spiritual friends by giving alms out of ill-gotten riches.

Ohj. 2. Further, All filthy lucre seems to be ill-gotten.
But the profits from whoredom are filthy lucre; wherefore
it was forbidden (Luke xxiii. 18) to offer therefrom sacrifices
or oblations to God: Thou shalt not offer the hire of a stru^npct
. . in the house of . . . thy God. In like manner gains
from games of chance arc ill-gotten, for, as the Philosopher

g. 32. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 422

says (Ethic, iv), z£^^ /a^^ suchlike gains from our friends to
whom we ought rather to give. And most of all are the profits
from simony ill-gotten, since thereby the Holy Ghost is
wronged. Nevertheless out of such gains it is lawful to
give alms. Therefore one may give alms out of ill-gotten
goods.

Ohj. 3. Further, Greater evils should be avoided more than
lesser evils. Now it is less sinful to keep back another's
property than to commit murder, of which a man is guilty
if he fails to succour one who is in extreme need, as appears
from the words of Ambrose who says (loc. cit. A. 5) : Feed
him that dies of hunger, if thou hast not fed him, thou hast slain
him. Therefore, in certain cases, it is lawful to give alms
of ill-gotten goods.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxxv.) :
Give alms from your just labours. For you will not bribe
Christ your judge, not to hear you with the poor whom you
rob. . . . Give not alms from interest and usury : I speak to
the faithful to whom we dispense the Body of Christ.

I answer that, A thing may be ill-gotten in three ways.
In the first place a thing is ill-gotten if it be due to the person
from whom it is gotten, and may not be kept by the person
who has obtained possession of it ; as in the case of rapine,
theft and usury, and of such things a man may not give
alms since he is bound to restore them.

Secondly, a thing is ill-gotten, when he that has it may
not keep it, and yet he may not return it to the person from
whom he received it, because he received it unjustly, while
the latter gave it unjustly. This happens in simony, wherein
both giver and receiver contravene the justice of the Divine
Law, so that restitution is to be made not to the giver,
but by giving alms. The same applies to all similar cases
of illegal giving and receiving.

Thirdly, a thing is ill-gotten, not because the taking was
unlawful, but because it is the outcome of something un-
lawful, as in the case of a woman's profits fro n whoredom.
This is filthy lucre properly so called, because the practice
of whoredom is filthy and against the Law of God, yet the

423 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 7

woman does not act unjustly or unlawfully in taking money.
Consequently it is lawful to keep and to give in alms what
is thus acquired by an unlawful action.

Reply Ohj. i. As Augustine says {De Verb. Doni. xxxv.),
Some have misunderstood this saying of Our Lord, so as to
take another's property and give thereof to the poor, thinking
that they are fulfilling the commandment by so doing. This
interpretation must be amended. Yet all riches are called
riches of iniquity, as stated in De Qucest. Ev. ii., because
riches are not unjust save for those who are themselves unjust,
and put all their trust in them. Or, according to Ambrose
in his commentary on Luke xvi. 9, Make unto yourselves
friends, etc., He calls mammon unjust, because it draws our
affections by the various allurements of wealth — Or, because
among the many ancestors whose property you inherit, there
is one who took the property of others unjustly, although you
know nothing about it, as Basil says in a homily (loc. cit.
A. 5). — Or, all riches are styled riches of iniquity, i.e., of
inequality, because they are not distributed equally among
all, one being in need, and another in affluence.

Reply Obj. 2. We have already explained how alms may
be given out of the profits of whoredom. Yet sacrifices and
oblations were not made therefrom at the altar, both on
account of the scandal, and through reverence for sacred
things. It is also lawful to give alms out of the profits of
si nony, because they are not due to him who paid, indeed
he deserves to lose them. But as to the profits from games
of chance, there would seem to be something unlawful as
being contrary to the Divine Law, when a man wins from
one who cannot alienate his property, such as minors,
lunatics and so forth, or when a man, with the desire of
making money out of another man, entices him to play,
and wins from him by cheating. In these cases he is bound
to restitution, and consequently cannot give away his gains
in alms. Then again there would seem to be something
unlawful as being against the positive civil law, which alto-
gether forbids any such profits. Since, however, a civil
law does not bind all, but only those who are subject to

Q. 32. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 424

that law, and moreover may be abrogated through desuetude,
it follows that all such as are bound by these laws are bound
to make restitution of such gains, unless perchance the con-
trary custom prevail, or unless a man win from one who
enticed him to play, in which case he is not bound to resti-
tution, because the loser does not deserve to be paid back :
and yet he cannot lawfully keep what he has won, so long
as that positive law is in force, wherefore in this case he ought
to give it away in alms.

Reply Ohj. 3. All things are common property in a case
of extreme necessity. Hence one who is in such dire straits
may take another's goods in order to succour himself, if
he can find no one who is willing to give him something.
For the same reason a man may retain what belongs to
another, and give alms thereof; or even take something if
there be no other way of succouring the one who is in need.
If however this be possible without danger, he must ask the
owner's consent, and then succour the poor man who is in
extreme necessity.

Eighth Article,
whether one who is under another's power can give

ALMS ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that one who is under another's
power can give alms. Foi religious are under the powei of
their prelates to whom they have vowed obedience. Now
if it were unlawful for them to give alms, they would lose
by entering the state of religion, for as Ambrose says on
I Tim. iv. 8 : ' Dutifulness (Douay, — Godliness) is profitable
to all things ' .' The sum total of the Christian religion consists
in doing one's duty by all, and the most creditable way of
doing this is to give alms. Therefore those who are in
another's power can give alms.

Obj. 2. Further, A wife is under her husband's power
(Gen. iii. 16). But a wife can give alms since she is her
husband's partner; hence it is related of the Blessed Lucy

425 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 8

that she gave alms without the knowledge of her betrothed.*
Therefore a person is not prevented from giving alms, by
being under another's power.

Obj. 3. Further, The subjection of children to their parents
is founded on nature, wherefore the Apostle says (Eph.
vi. i) : Children, obey your parents in the Lord. But, appar-
ently, children may give alms out of their parents' propeity.
For it is their own, since they are the heirs; wheiefore, since
they can employ it for some bodily use, it seems that much
more can they use it in giving alms so as to profit their
souls. Therefore those who are under another's powei can
give alms.

Obj. 4. Further, Servants are under their master's power,
according to Tit. ii. 9: Exhort servants to be obedient to their
masters. Now they may lawfully do anything that will
profit their masters : and this would be especially the case
if they gave alms for them. Therefore those who are under
another's power can give alms.

On the contrary, Alms should not be given out of another's
property; and each one should give alms out of the just
profit of his own labour, as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.).
Now if those who are subject to anyone were to give alms,
this would be out of another's property. Therefore those
who are under another's powei cannot give alms.

/ answer that. Anyone who is under another's power must,
as such, be ruled in accordance with tjie power of his su-
perior: for the natural order demands that the inferior
should be ruled according to its superior. Therefore in
those matters in which the inferior is subject to his superior,
his ministrations must be subject to the superior's permis-
sion.

Accordingly he that is under another's power must not
give alms of anything in respect of which he is subject to
that other, except in so for as he has been commissioned by
his superior. But if he has something in respect of which
he is not under the power of his superior, he is no longer

* SpoHsus. The nuitrimonial institutions of the Romans were so
entirely different from ours that sponsus is no longer accurately
rendered cither husband or betrothed.

Q. 32. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 426

subject to another in its regard, being independent in respect
of that particular thing, and he can give alms therefrom.

Reply Ohj. I. If a monk be dispensed through being com
missioned by his superior, he can give alms from the pro-
perty of his monastery, in accordance with the terms of his
commission; but if he has no such dispensation, since he
has nothing of his own, he cannot give alms without his
abbot's permission either express or presumed for some
probable reason: except in a case of extreme necessity,
when it would be lawful for him to commit a theft in order
to give an alms. Nor does it follow that he is worse off
than before, because, as stated in De Eccles. Dogm., it is a
good thing to give one's property to the poor little by little, but
it is better still to give all at once in order to follow Christ, and
being freed from care, to be needy with Christ.

Reply Obj. 2. A wife, who has other property besides her
dowry which is for the support of the burdens of marriage,
whether that property be gained by her own industry or
by any other lawful means, can give alms, out of that pro-
perty, without asking her husband's permission: yet such
alms should be moderate, lest through giving too much she
impoverish her husband. Otherwise she ought not to give
alms without the express or presumed consent of her hus-
band, except in cases of necessity, as stated, in the case
of a monk, in the preceding Reply. For though the wife
be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters
of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the
Apostle says (i Cor. xi. 3). As regards Blessed Lucy, she
had a betrothed, not a husband, wherefore she could give
alms with her mother's consent.

Reply Obj. 3. What belongs to the children belongs also
to the father: wherefore the child cannot give alms, except
in such small quantity that one may presume the father to
be willing: unless, perchance, the fat her authorize his child
to dispose of any particular property. The same applies to
servants. Hence the Reply to the Fourth Objectio?i is clear.

427 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 9

Ninth Article.

whether one ought to give alms to those rather who
are more closely united to us ?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that one ought not to give alms to
those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is
written (Ecclus. xii. 4, 6) : Give to the merciful and uphold
not the sinner . . . Do good to the humble and give not to the
ungodly. Now it happens sometimes that those who are
closely united to us are sinful and ungodly. Therefore we
ought not to give alms to them in preference to others.

Obj. 2. Further, Alms should be given that we may receive
an erernal reward in return, according to Matth. vi. 18:
And thy Father Who seeth in secret, will repay thee. Now the
eternal reward is gained chiefly by the alms which are given
to the saints, according to Luke xvi. 9: Make unto you
friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail,
they may receive you into everlasting dwellings, which passage
Augustine expounds {De Verb. Dom. xxxv.) : Who shall have
everlasting dwellings unless the saints of God ? And who are they
that shall be received by them into their dwellings, if not those
who succour them in their needs ? Therefore alms should be
given to the more holy persons rather than to those who
are moic closely united to us.

Obj. 3. Further, Man is more closely united to himself.
But a man cannot give himself an alms. Therefore it seems
that we are not bound to give alms to those who are most
closely united to us.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Tim. v. 8) : // any
man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his
house, he hath denied the jaith, and is worse than an infidel.

I answer that, As Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.),
it falls to us by lot, as it were, to have to look to the welfare of
those who are more closely united to us. Nevertheless in this
matter we must employ discretion, according to the various
degrees of connexion, holiness and utility. For we ought

Q. 32. Art. 10 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '* 428

to give alms to one who is much hoher and in greater want,
and to one who is more useful to the common weal, rather
than to one who is more closely united to us, especially if the
latter be not very closely united, and has no special claim
on our care then and there, and who is not in very urgent
need.

Reply Ohj. i. We ought not to help a sinner as such,
that is by encouraging him to sin, but as man, that is by
supporting his nature.

Reply Obj. 2. Alm^sdeeds deserve on two counts to receive
an eternal reward. First because they are rooted in charity,
and in this respect an almsdeed is meritorious in so far as
it observes the order of charity, which requires that, other
things being equal, we should, in preference, help those who
are more closely connected with us. Wherefore Ambrose
says {De Ofjlciis, i.) : It is with commendable liberality that
you forget not your kindred, if you know them to be in need,
for it is better that you should yourself help your own family,
who ivould be ashamed to beg help from others. Secondly,
almsdeeds deserve to be rewarded eternally, through the
merit of the recipient, who prays for the giver, and it is in
this sense that Augustine is speaking.

Reply Obj. 3. Since almsdeeds are works of mercy, just
as a man does not, properly speaking, pity himself, but only
by a kind of comparison, as stated above (Q. XXX., AA.
I, 2), so too, properly speaking, no man gives himself an
alms, unless he act in another's person; thus when a man is
appointed to distribute alms, he can take something for
himself, if he be in want, on the same ground as when he
gives to others.

Tenth Article,
whether alms should be given in abundance }

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : — •

Objection 1. It seems that alms should not be given in
abundance. For we ought to give alms to those chiefly
who are most closely connected with us. But we ought not
to give to them in such a way that they are likely to become

429 ALMSDEEDS Q. 32. Art. 10

richer thereby, as Ambrose says {De Offic. i.). Therefore
neither should we give abundantly to others.

Ohj. 2. Further, Ambrose says {ibid.) : We should not
lavish our wealth on others all at once, we should dole it out
by degrees. But to give abundantly is to give lavishly.
Therefore alms should not be given in abundance.

Ob]. 3. Further, The Apostle says (2 Cor. viii. 13) : Not
that others should be eased, i.e., should live on you without
working themselves, and you burthened, i.e. impoverished.
But this would be the result if alms were given in abun-
dance. Therefore we ought not to give alms abundantly.

On the contrary, It is written (Tob. iv. 9) : If thou have
much, give abundantly.

I answer that, Alms may be considered abundant in rela-
tion either to the giver, or to the recipient : in relation to
the giver, when that which a man gives is great as compared
with his means. To give thus is praiseworthy, wherefore
Our Lord (Luke xxi. 3, 4) commended the widow because
of her want, she cast in all the living that she had. Never-
theless those conditions must be observed which were laid
down when we spoke of giving alms out of one's necessary
goods (A. 9).

On the part of the recipient, an alms may be abundant
in two ways; first, by relieving his need sufficiently, and
in this sense it is praiseworthy to give alms: secondly, by
relieving his need more than sufficiently; this is not praise-
worthy, and it would be better to give to several that are
in need, wherefore the Apostle says (i Cor. xiii. 3) : If I
should distribute . . . to feed the poor, on which words a
gloss comments : Thus we are warned to be careful in giving
alms, and to give, not to one only, but to many, that we may
profit many.

Reply Obj. i. This argument considers abundance of alms
as exceeding the needs of the recipient.

Reply Obj. 2. The passage quoted considers abundance
of alms on the part of the giver; but the sense is that God
does not wish a man to lavish all his wealth at once, except
when he changes his state of life, wherefore he goes on to

Q. 32. Art. 10 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 430

say: Except we imitate Eliseus who slew his oxen and fed the
poor with what he had, so that no household cares might keep
him hack (3 Kings xix. 21).

Reply Obj. 3. In the passage quoted the words, not that
others should be eased or refreshed, refer to that abundance
of alms which surpasses the need of the recipient, to whom
one should give alms not that he may have an easy life,
but that he may have relief. Nevertheless we must bring
discretion to bear on the matter, on account of the various
conditions of men, some of whom are more daintily nur-
tured, and need finer food and clothing. Hence Ambrose
says {De Offic. i.) : When you give an alms to a man, you
should take into consideration his age and his weakness ; and
sometimes the shame which proclaims his good birth ; and
again that perhaps he has fallen from riches to indigence
through no fault of his own.

With regard to the words that follow, and you hurthened,
they refer to abundance on the part of the giver. Yet, as
a gloss says on the same passage, he says this, not because it
would be better to give in abundance, but because he fears for
the weak, and he admonishes them so to give that they lack not
for themselves.

QUESTION XXXIII.

OF FRATERNAL CORRECTION.

{In Eight Articles.)

We must now consider Fraternal Correction, under which
head there are eight points of inquiry: (i) Whether fraternal
correction is an act of charity ? (2) Whether it is a matter
of precept ? (3) Whether this precept binds all, or only
superiors ? (4) Whether this precept binds the subject to
correct his superior ? (5) Whether a sinner may correct any-
one ? (6) Whether one ought to correct a person who be-
comes worse through being corrected ? (7) Whether secret
correction should precede denouncement ? (8) Whether
witnesses should be called before denouncement ?

First Article,
whether fraternal correction is an act of charity ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that fraternal correction is not an
act of charity. For a gloss on Matth. xviii. 15, If thy brother
shall offend against thee, says that a man should reprove his
brother out of zeal for justice. But justice is a distinct virtue
from charity. Therefore fraternal correction is an act, not
of charity, but of justice.

Obj. 2. Further, Fraternal correction is given by secret
admonition. Now admonition is a kind of counsel, which
is an act of prudence, for a prudent man is one who is of
good counsel {Ethic, vi.). Therefore fraternal correction is
an act, not of charity, but of prudence.

Obj. 3. Further, Contrar^^ acfs do pot belong to the same

431

Q. 33. Art i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 432

virtue. Now it is an act of charity to bear with a sinner,
according to Gal. vi. 2 : Bear ye one another'' s burdens, and
so you shall fulfil the law of Christ, which is the law of charity.
Therefore it seems that the correction of a sinning brother,
which is contrary to bearing with him, is not an act of charity.

On the contrary, To correct the wrongdoer is a spiritual
almsdeed. But almsdeeds are works of charity, as stated
above (O. XXXII. , A. i). Therefore fraternal correction
is an act of charity.

/ answer that. The correction of the wrongdoer is a remedy
which should be employed against a man's sin. Now a
man's sin may be considered in two ways, first as being
harmful to the sinner, secondly as conducing to the harm
of others, by hurting or scandalizing them, or by being
detrimental to the common good, the justice of which is
disturbed by that man's sin.

Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold,
one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil
of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly
so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner.
Now to do away with anyone's evil is the same as to procure
his good : and to procure a person's good is an act of charity,
whereby we wish and do our friend well. Consequently
fraternal correction also is an act of charity, because thereby
we drive out our brother's evil, viz. sin, the removal of which
pertains to charity rather than the removal of an external
loss, or of a bodily injury, in so much as the contrary good
of virtue is more akin to charity than the good of the body
or of external things. Therefore fraternal correction is an
act of charity rather than the healing of a bodily infirmity,
or the relieving of an external bodily need.

There is another correction which applies a remedy to the
sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and
especially to the common good. This correction is an act
of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of
justice between one man and another.

Reply Ohj. i. This gloss speaks of the second correction
which is an act of justice. Or if it speaks of the first cor-

433 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33. Art. ±

rection, then it takes justice as denoting a general virtue,
as we shall state furthei on (Q. LVIIL, A. 5), in which sense
again all sin is iniquity (i John iii. 4), through being contrary
to justice.

Reply Ohj. 2. According to the Philosopher (Ethic, vi.),
prudence regulates whatever is directed to the end, about
which things counsel and choice are concerned. Nevertheless
when, guided by prudence, we perform some action aright
which is directed to the end of some virtue, such as temper-
ance or fortitude, that action belongs chiefly to the virtue
to whose end it is directed. Since, then, the admonition
which is given in fraternal correction is directed to the re-
moval of a brother's sin, which removal pertains to charity,
it is evident that this admonition is chiefly an act of charity,
which virtue commands it, so to speak, but secondarily an
act of prudence, which executes and directs the action.

Reply Ohj. 3. Fraternal correction is not opposed to
forbearance with the weak, on the contrary it results from
it. For a man bears with a sinner, in so far as he is not
disturbed against him, and retains his goodwill towards
him : the result being that he strives to make him do better.

Second Article,
whether fraternal correction is a matter of precept ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that fraternal correction is not a
matter of precept. For nothing impossible is a matter
of precept, according to the saying of Jerome (Pelagius, —
Expos. Symb. ad Damas) : Accursed be he who says that God
has commanded anything impossible. Now it is wTitten
(Eccles. vii. 14) : Consider the works oj God, that no man can
correct whom He hath despised. Therefore fraternal correc-
tion is not a matter of precept.

Obj. 2. Further, All the precepts of the Divine law arc
reduced to the precepts of the Decalogue. But fraternal
correction docs not come under any precept of the Deca-
logue. Therefore it is not a matter of precept.

II. ii. I 28

Obj. 3. Further, The omission of a Divine precept is a
mortal sin, which has no place in a holy man. Yet holy
and spiritual men are found to omit fraternal correction:
since Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i.) : Not only those of low
degree, but also those of high position, refrain from reproving
others, moved by a guilty cupidity, not by the claims of charity.
Therefore fraternal correction is not a matter of precept.

Obj. 4. Further, Whatever is a matter of precept is some-
thing due. If, therefore, fraternal correction is a matter of
precept, it is due to our biethren that we correct them when
they sin. Now when a man owes anyone a material due,
such as the payment of a sum of money, he must not be
content that his creditor come to him, but he should seek
him out, that he may pay him his due. Hence we should
have to go seeking for those who need correction, in order
that we might correct them; which appears to be incon-
venient, both on account of the great number of sinners,
for whose correction one man could not sufftce, and because
rehgious would have to leave the cloister in order to reprove
men, which would be unbecoming. Therefore fraternal
correction is not a matter of precept.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. i) : You
become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him. But
this would not be so unless, by this neglect, one omitted to
observe some precept. Therefore fraternal correction is a
matter of precept.

/ answer that, Fraternal correction is a matter of precept.
We must observe, however, that while the negative precepts
of the Law forbid sinful acts, the positive precepts inculcate
acts of virtue. Now sinful acts are evil in themselves, and
cannot become good, no matter how, or when, or where,
they are done, because of their very nature they are con-
nected with an evil end, as stated in Ethic, ii. : wherefore
negative precepts bind always and for all times. On the
other hand, acts of virtue must not be done anyhow, but by
observing the due circumstances, which are requisite in
order that an act be virtuous ; namely, that it be done where,
when, and how it ought to be done. And since the dispo-

435 FRATERNAL CORRECTION g. 33. Art. 2

sition of whatever is directed to the end depends on the
formal aspect of the end, the chief of these circumstances
of a viituous act is this aspect of the end, which in this case
is the good of virtue. If therefore such a circumstance be
omitted from a virtuous act, as entirely takes away the
good of virtue, such an act is contrary to a precept. If,
however, the circumstance omitted from a virtuous act be
such as not to destroy the virtue altogether, though it
does not perfectly attain the good of virtue, it is not against
a precept. Hence the Philosopher {Ethic, ii.) says that if
we depart but little from the mean, it is not contrary to the
virtue, whereas if we depart much from the mean, virtue is
destroyed in its act. Now fraternal correction is directed to
a brother's amendment : so that it is a matter of precept,
in so far as it is necessary for that end, but not so as we
have to correct our erring brother at all places and times.

Reply Ohj. i. In all good deeds man's action is not effica-
cious without the Divine assistance : and yet man must do
what is in his power. Hence Augustine says (De Correp.
et Gratia, xv.) : Since we ignore who is predestined and who is
not, charity should so guide our feelings, that we wish all to be
saved. Consequently we ought to do our brethren the kind-
ness of correcting them, with the hope of God's help.

Reply Ohj. 2. As stated above (Q. XXXII., A. 5, ad 4),
all the precepts about rendering service to our neighbour
are reduced to the precept about the honour due to parents.

Reply Ohj. 3. Fraternal correction may be omitted in
three ways.

First, meritoriously, when out of charity one omits to
correct someone. For Augustine says {De Civ. Dei i.) : // a
man refrains from chiding and reproving wrongdoers, because
he awaits a suitable time for so doing, or because he fears lest,
if he does so, they may become worse, or hinder, oppress, or
turn away from the faith, others who are weak and need to be
instructed in a life of goodness and virtue, this does not seem
to result from covetousness, but to be counselled by charity.

Secondly, fraternal coiTection may be omitted in such a
way that one commits a mortal sin, namely, when (as he says

in the same passage) one fears what people may think, or lest
one may suffer grievous pain or death ; provided, however ,
that the mind is so dominated by such things, that it gives them
the preference to fraternal charity. This would seem to be
the case when a man reckons that he might probably with-
draw some wrongdoer from sin, and yet omits to do so,
through fear or covet ousness.

Thirdly, such an omission is a venial sin, when through
tear or covetousness, a man is loth to correct his brother's
faults, and yet not to such a degree, that if he saw clearly
that he could withdraw him from sin, he would still forbear
from so doing, through fear or covetousness, because in his
own mind he prefers fraternal charity to these things. It
is in this way that holy men sometimes omit to correct
wrongdoers.

Reply Ohj. 4. We are bound to pay that which is due to
some fixed and certain person, whether it be a material or a
spiritual good, without waiting for him to come to us, but by
taking proper steps to find him. Wherefore just as he that
owes money to a creditor should seek him, when the time
comes, so as to pay him what he owes, so he that has spiritual
charge of some person is bound to seek him out, in order
to reprove him for a sin. On the other hand, we are not
bound to seek someone on whom to bestow such favours as
are due, not to any certain person, but to all our neighbours
in general, whether those favours be material or spiritual
goods, but it suffices that we bestow them when the oppor-
tunity occurs ; because, as Augustine sdiys {DeDoctr. Christ, i.),
we must look upon this as a matter of chance. For this reason
he says (De Verb. Dom.) that Our Lord warns us not to be
listless in regard of one another^ s sins ; not indeed by being
on the look out for something to denounce, but by correcting
what we see : else we should become spies on the lives of
others, which is against the saying of Prov. xxiv. 15: Lie
not in wait, nor seek after wickedness in the house of the just,
nor spoil his rest. It is evident from this that there is no
need for religious to leave their cloister in order to rebuke
evil-doers.

437 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33. Art. 3

Third Article.

whether fraternal correction belongs only to

prelates ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — ■

Objection i. It seems that fraternal correction belongs to
prelates alone. For Jerome says (cf. Origen, Horn. vii.
in Jos.) : Let priests endeavour to fulfil this saying of the
Gospel : ' If thy brother sin against thee,'' etc. Now prelates
having charge of others were usually designated under
the name of priests. Therefore it seems that fraternal
correction belongs to prelates alone.

Obj. 2. Further, Fraternal correction is a spiritual alms.
Now corporal almsgiving belongs to those who are placed
above others in temporal matters, i.e. to the rich. There-
fore fraternal correction belongs to those who are placed
above others in spiritual matters, i.e. to prelates.

Obj. 3. Further, When one man reproves another he moves
him by his rebuke to something better. Now in the physical
order the inferior is moved by the superior. Therefore in
the order of virtue also, which follows the order of nature,
it belongs to prelates alone to correct inferiors.

On the contrary, It is written (XXIV., Q. III., Can. Tarn
Sacerdotes) : Both priests and all the rest of the faithful should
be most solicitous for those who perish, so that their reproof may
either correct their sinful ways, or, if they be incorrigible, cut
them off from the Church.

I answer that. As stated above (A. i), correction is twofold.
One is an act of charity, which seeks in a special way the
recovery of an erring brother by means of a simple warning :
suchlike correction belongs to anyone who has charity, be
he subject or prelate.

But there is another correction which is an act of justice
purposing the common good, which is procured not only
by warning one's brother, but also.-sometimes, by punishing
him, that others may, through fear, desist from sin. Such
a correct i9n belongs only to prelates, whose business it is

Q. 33- Art. 4 THE ' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 438

not only to admonish, but also to correct by means of pun-
ishments.

Reply Ohj. i. Even as regards that fraternal correction
which is common to all, prelates have a grave responsi-
bility, as Augustine says {De Civ. Dei i.) : for just as a man
ought to bestow temporal favours on those especially of
whom he has temporal care, so too ought he to confer
spiritual favours, such as correction, teaching and the like,
on those who are entrusted to his spiritual care. Therefore
Jerome does not mean that the precept of fraternal cor-
rection concerns priests only, but that it concerns them
chiefly.

Reply Ohj. 2. Just as he who has the means wherewith to
give corporal assistance is rich in this respect, so he whose
reason is gifted with a sane judgment, so as to be able to
correct another's wrong-doing, is, in this respect, to be
looked on as a superior.

Reply Ohj. 3. Even in the physical order certain things
act mutually on one another, through being in some respect
higher than one another, in so far as each is somewhat in
act, and somewhat in potentiality with regard to another.
In like manner one man can correct another in so far as he
has a sane judgment in a matter wherein the other sins,
though he is not his superior simply.

Fourth Article,
whether a man is bound to correct his prelate ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that no man is bound to correct his
prelate. For it is written (Exod. xix. 12): The beast that
shall touch the mount shall he stoned,^ and (2 Kings vi. 7)
it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark.
Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore
prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.

Ohj. 2. Further, A gloss on Gal. ii. 11, / withstood him to

* Vulg., — Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying Ij^e shall die.

439 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33. Art. 4

the face, adds : as an equal. Therefore, since a subject is not
equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.

Ohj. 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral, xxiii.) that one
ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless
one thinks better of oneself. But one ought not to think
better of oneself than of one's prelate. Therefore one ought
not to correct one's prelate.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule : Show mercy
not only to yourselves, hut also to him who, being in the higher
position among you, is therefore in greater danger. But
fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even
prelates ought to be corrected.

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer
to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through
the coercive nature of punishment : but the fraternal cor-
rection which is an act of charity is within the competency
of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is
bound by charity, provided there be something in that
person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends
to whatever is contained under the object of that power or
habit : thus vision extends to all things comprised in the
object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be
moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a
subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming
manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentle-
ness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (i Tim. v. i.) :
An ancient man rebuke not, hut entreat him as a father.
Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus
(Ep. viii.), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking
and turning him out of the church.

Reply Ohj. i. It would seem that a subject touches his
prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence,
as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by
God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and
the ark.

Reply Ohj. 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the
mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have

Q. 33. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 440

withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal
as regards the defence of the faith. But one who is not an
equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the
Apostle in writing to the Colossians (iv. 17) tells them to
admonish their prelate: Say to Archippus : Fulfil thy
ministry.*' It must be observed, however, that if the
faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate
even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, re-
buked him in public, on account of the imminent danger
of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine
says on* Gal. ii. 11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that
if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight
path, they should not disdain to he reproved by their
subjects.

Reply Obj. 3. To presume oneself to be simply better
than one's prelate, would seem to savour of presumptuous
pride ; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better
in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without
some fault. We must also remember that when a man
reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he
thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help
to one who, being in the higher position among you, is there-
fore in greater danger, as Augustine observes in his Rule
quoted above.

Fifth Article,
whether a sinner ought to reprove a wrongdoer ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that a sinner ought to reprove a
'vvrongdoer. For no man is excused from obeying a precept
by having committed a sin. But fraternal correction is a
matter of precept, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore it
seems that a man ought not to forbear from suchlike cor-
rection for the reason that he has committed a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Spiritual almsdeeds are of more account
than corporal almsdeeds. Now one who is in sin ought not

* Vulg., — Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the
Lord, that thou fulfil it.

441 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33- Art. 5

to abstain from administering corporal alms. Much less
therefore ought he, on account of a previous sin, to refrain
from correcting wrongdoers.

Obj. 3. Further, It is written (i John i. 8) : If we say that
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Therefore if, on account
of a sin, a man is hindered from reproving his brother, there
will be none to reprove the wrongdoer. But the latter
proposition is unreasonable: therefore the former is also.

On the contrary, Isidore says (De Sunimo Bono iii.) : He
that is subject to vice should not correct the vices of others.
Again it is written (Rom. ii. i) : Wherein thou judgest another,
thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which
thou judgest.

I answer that. As stated above (A. '^, ad 2), to correct a
wrongdoer belongs to a man, in so far as his reason is gifted
with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I. -II.,
Q. LXXXV., AA. I, 2), does not destroy the good of nature
so as to deprive the sinner's reason of all right judgment, and
in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others
for committing sin. Nevertheless a previous sin proves some-
what of a hindrance to this correction, for three reasons . First
because this previous sin renders a man unworthy to rebuke
another; and especially is he unworthy to correct another
for a lesser sin, if he himself has committed a greater. Hence
Jerome says on the words, Why seest thou the mote ? etc.
(Matth. vii. 3) : He is speaking of those who, while they are
themselves guilty of mortal sin, have no patience with the lesser
si7ts of their brethren.

Secondly, suchlike correction becomes unseemly, on
account of the scandal which ensues therefrom, if the cor-
rector's sin be well known, because it would seem that he
corrects, not out of charity, but more for the sake of osten-
tation. Hence the words of Matth. vii. 4, How say est thou
to thy brother ? etc. are expounded by Chrysostom* thus :
That is,—' With what object ? ' Out of charity, think you,
that you may save your neighbour ? Xo, because von would

* Horn. xvii. in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to S. John
Clirysostom.

Q. 33- Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 442

look after your oze^n salvation first. What you 'want is, not
to save others, hut to hide your evil deeds with good teaching,
and to seek to he praised by men for your knowledge.

Thirdly, on account of the rebiiker's pride; when, for
instance, a man thinks hghtly of his own sins, and, in his
own heart, sets himself above his neighbour, judging the
latter's sins with harsh severity, as though he himself were
a just man. Hence Augustine says {De Serm. Dom. in
Monte ii.) : To reprove the faults of others is the duty of good
and kindly men : when a wicked man rehukes anyone, his
rehuke is the latter's acquittal. And so, as Augustine says
(ihid.): When we have to find fault with anyone, we should
think whether we were never guilty of his sin ; and then we
must rememher that we are men, and might have heen guilty
of it ; or that we once had it on our conscience, hut have it
no longer: and then we should hethink ourselves that we are
all weak, in order that our reproof may he the outcome, not
of hatred, hut of pity. But if we find that we are guilty of
the same sin, we must not rehuke him, hut groan with him,
and invite him to repent with us. It follows from this that,
if a sinner reprove a wrongdoer with humility, he does not
sin, nor does he bring ?. further condemnation on himself,
although thereby he proves himself deserving of con-
demnation, either in his brother's or in his own conscience,
on account of his previous sin.

Hence the Replies to the Objections are clear.

Sixth Article.

whether one ought to forbear from correcting some-
one, through fear lest he become worse ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that one ought not to forbear from
correcting someone through fear lest he become worse.
For sin is weakness of the soul, according to Ps. vi. 3 : Have
mercy on me, 0 Lord, for I am weak. Now he that has
charge of a sick person, must not cease to take care of him,
even if he be fractious or contemptuous, because then the

443 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33- Art. 6

danger is greater, as in the case of madmen. Much more,
therefore should one correct a sinner, no matter how badly
he takes it.

Obj. 2. Further, According to Jerome vital truths are
not to be foregone on account of scandal. Now God's
commandments are vital truths. Since, therefore, fraternal
correction is a matter of precept, as stated above (A. 2), it
seems that it should not be foregone for fear of scandalizing
the person to be corrected.

Obj. 3. Further, According to the Apostle (Rom. iii. 8)
we should not do evil that good may come of it. Therefore,
in like manner, good should not be omitted lest evil befall.
Now fraternal correction is a good thing. Therefore it
should not be omitted for fear lest the person corrected
become worse.

On the contrary, It is written (Prov. ix. 8) : Rebuke not a
scorner lest he hate thee, where a gloss remarks: You must
not fear lest the scorner insult you when you rebuke him :
rather should you bear in -mind that by making him hate you,
you may make him worse. Therefore one ought to forego
fraternal correct ion,, when we fear lest we may make a man
worse.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 3) the correction of the
wrongdoer is twofold. One, which belongs to prelates, and
is directed to the common good, has coercive force. Such
correction should not be omitted lest the person corrected
be disturbed, both because if he is unwilling to amend his
ways of his own accord, he should be made to cease sinning
by being punished, and because, if he be incorrigible, the
common good is safeguarded in this way, since the order of
justice is observed, and others are deterred by one being
made an example of. Hence a judge does not desist from
pronouncing sentence of condemnation against a sinner,
for fear of disturbing him or his friends.

The other fraternal correction is directed to the amend-
ment of the wrongdoer, whom it docs not coerce, but merely
admonishes. Consequently when it is deemed probable that
the sinner will not take the warning, and will become worse,

Q. 33. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 444

such fraternal correction should be foregone, because the
means should be regulated according to the requirements of
the end.

Reply Obj. I. The doctor uses force towards a madman,
who is unwilling to submit to his treatment ; and this may
be compared with the correction administered by prelates,
which has coercive power, but not with simple fraternal
correction.

Reply Obj. 2. Fraternal correction is a matter of precept,
in so far as it is an act of virtue, and it will be a virtuous
act in so far as it is proportionate to the end. Consequently
whenever it is a hindrance to the end, for instance when a
man becomes worse through it, it is no longer a vital truth,
nor is it a matter of precept .

Reply Obj. 3. Whatever is directed to an end, becomes
good through being directed to the end. Hence whenever
fraternal correction hinders the end, namely the amend-
ment of our brother, it is no longer good, so that when such
a correction is omitted, good is not omitted lest evil should
befall.

Seventh Article,
whether the precept of fraternal correction demands
that a private admonition should precede denun-
CIATION ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the precept of fraternal correc-
tion does not demand that a private admonition should
precede denunciation. For, in works of charity, we should
above all follow the example of God, according to Eph.
V. I, 2 : Be ye followers of God, as most dear children, and
walk in love. Now God sometimes punishes a man for a
sin, without previously warning him in secret. Therefore
it seems that there is no need for a private admonition to
precede denunciation.

Obj. 2. Further, According to Augustine (De Mendacio
XV.), we learn from the deeds of holy men how we ought to
understand the commandments of Holy Writ. Now among the

445 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33- Aru 7

deeds of holy men we find that a hidden sin is pubhcly
denounced, without any previous admonition in private.
Thus we read (Gen. xxxvii. 2) that Joseph accused his
brethren to his father of a most wicked crime : and (Acts v.
4, 9) that Peter pubhcly denounced Ananias and Saphira who
had secretly by fraud kept back the price of the land, without
beforehand admonishing them in private : nor do we read
that Our Lord admonished Judas in secret before denounc-
ing him. Therefore the precept does not require that secret
admonition should precede public denunciation.

Obj. 3. Further, It is a graver matter to accuse than to
denounce. Now one may go to the length of accusing a
person publicly, without previously admonishing him in
secret : for it is decided in the Decretal (Cap. Qualiter, De
Accusationibus) that nothing else need precede accusation
except inscription* Therefore it seems that the precept
does not require that a secret admonition should precede
pubhc denunciation.

Obj. 4. Further, It does not seem probable that the cus-
toms observed by religious in general are contrary to the
precepts of Christ. Now it is customary among religious
orders to proclaim this or that one for a fault, without any
previous secret admonition. Therefore it seems that this
admonition is not required by the precept.

Obj. 5. Further, Religious are bound to obey their prelates.
Now a prelate sometimes commands either all in general,
or someone in particular, to tell him if they know of any-
thing that requires correction. Therefore it would seem that
they are bound to tell them this, even before any secret
admonition. Therefore the precept does not require secret
admonition before public denunciation.

On the contrary, Augustine says {Dc Verb. Dom. xvi.) on the
words, Rebuke him between thee and him alone (Matth. xviii.
15): Aiming at his amendment, while avoiding his disgrace:

* The accuser was bound by Roman Law to endorse {se inscrihere)
the writ of accusation. The effect of this endorsement or inscrip-
tion was that the accuser bound himself, if he failed to prove the
accusation, to suffer the same punishment as the accused would
have to suffer if proved guilty.

Q. 33- Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 446

since perhaps from shame he might begin to defend his sin;
and him whom you thought to make a better man, you make
worse. Now we are bound by the precept of charity to
beware lest our brother become worse. Therefore the order
of fraternal correction comes under the precept.

/ answer that, With regard to the public denunciation of
sins it is necessary to make a distinction: because sins may
be either public or secret. In the case of public sins, a
remedy is required not only for the sinner, that he may
become better, but also for others, who know of his sin,
lest they be scandalized. Wherefore suchlike sins should be
denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle
(i Tim. V. 20) : Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest
also may have fear, which is to be understood as referring to
pubhc sins, as Augustine states {De Verb. Dom. xvi.).

On the other hand, in the case of secret sins, the words
of Our Lord seem to apply (Matth. xviii. 15) : If thy brother
shall offend against thee, etc. For if he offend thee publicly
in the presence of others, he no longer sins against thee
alone, but also against others whom iie disturbs. Since,
however, a man's neighbour may take offence even at his
secret sins, it seems that we must make yet a further dis-
tinction. For certain secret sins are hurtful to our neigh-
bour either in his body or in his soul, as, for instance, when
a man plots secretly to betray his country to its enemies, or
when a heretic secretly turns other men away from the
faith. And since he that sins thus in secret, sins not only
against you in particular, but also against others, it is
necessary to take steps to denounce him at once, in order
to prevent him doing such harm, unless by chance you were
firmly persuaded that this evil result would be prevented
by admonishing him secretly. On the other hand there are
other sins which injure none but the sinner, and the person
sinned against, either because he alone is hurt by the sinner,
or at least because he alone knows about his sin, and then
our one purpose should be to succour our sinning brother ;
and just as the physician of the body restores the sick man
to health, if possible, without cutting off a limb, but, if this

447 FRATERNAL CORRECTION g. 33- Art. 7

be unavoidable, cuts off a limb which is least indispensable,
in order to preserve the life of the whole body, so too he
who desires his brother's amendment should, if possible, so
amend him as regards his conscience, that he keep his good
name.

For a good name is useful, first of all to the sinner himself,
not only in temporal matters, wherein a man suffers many
losses, if he lose his good name, but also in spiritual matters,
because many are restrained from sinning, through fear of
dishonour, so that when a man finds his honour lost, he puts
no curb on his sinning. Hence Jerome says on Matth.
xviii. 15 : // he sin against thee, thou shouldst rebuke him in
private, lest he persist in his sin if he should once become
shameless or unabashed. Secondly, we ought i6 safeguard
our sinning brother's good name, both because the dis-
honour of one leads to the dishonour of others, accord-
ing to the saying of Augustine (Ep. ad pleb. Hipponens.
Ixxviii.) : When a few of those who bear a name for holiness
are reported falsely or proved in truth to have done anything
wrong, people will seek by busily repeating it to make it be-
lieved of all : and also because when one man's sin is made
public others are incited to sin likewise.

Since, however, one's conscience should be preferred to
a good name. Our Lord wished that we should publicly de-
nounce our brother and so deliver his conscience from sin,
even though he should forfeit his good name. Therefore
it is evident that the precept requires a secret admonition
to precede public denunciation.

Reply Obj. i. Whatever is hidden, is knowTi to God,
wherefore hidden sins are to the judgment of God, just
what public sins are to the judgment of man. Nevertheless
God does rebuke sinners sometimes by secretly admonishing
them, so to speak, with an inward inspiration, either while
they wake or while they sleep, according to Job xxxiii. 15-37 •
By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon
men . . . then He openeth the ears of men, and teaching in-
structeth them in what they are to learn, that He may withdraw
a man from the things lie is doing.

Q. 33 Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 448

Reply Ohj. 2. Our Lord as God knew the sin of Judas as
though it were pubhc, wherefore He could have made it
known at once. Yet He did not, but warned Judas of his
sin in words that were obscure. The sin of Ananias and
Saphira was denounced by Peter acting as God's executor,
by Whose revelation he knew of their sin. With regard to
Joseph it is probable that he warned his brethren, though
Scripture does not say so. Or we may say that the sin was
public with regard to his brethren, wherefore it is stated in
the plural that he accused his brethren.

Reply Ohj. 3. When there is danger to a great number of
people, those words of Our Lord do not apply, because then
thy brother does not sin against thee alone.

Reply Ohj. 4. Proclamations made in the chapter of
religious are about little faults which do not affect a man's
good name, wherefore they are reminders of forgotten faults
rather than accusations or denunciations. If, however, they
should be of such a nature as to injure our brother's good
name, it would be contrary to Our Lord's precept, to de-
, nounce a brother's fault in this manner.

Reply Ohj. 5. A prelate is not to be obeyed contrary to a
Divine precept, according to Acts v. 29: We ought to ohey
God rather than men. Therefore when a prelate commands
anyone to tell him anything that he knows to need correction,
the command rightly understood supports the safeguarding
of the order of fraternal correction, whether the command
be addressed to all in general, or to some particular indivi-
dual. If, on the other hand, a prelate were to issue a com-
mand in express opposition to this order instituted by Our
Lord, both would sin, the one commanding, and the one obey-
ing him, as disobeying Our Lord's command. Consequently
he ought not to be obeyed, because a prelate is not the judge
of secret things, but God alone is, wherefore he has no power
to command anything in respect of hidden matters, except
in so far as they are made known through certain signs,
as by ill repute or suspicion; in which cases a prelate can
command just as a judge, whether secular or ecclesiastical,
can bind a man under oath to tell the truth.

449 FRATERNAL CORRECTION Q. 33. Art. 8

Eighth Article.

whether before the public denunciation witnesses
ought to be brought forward ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that before the pubHc denuncia-
tion witnesses ought not to be brought forward. For secret
sins ought not to be made known to others, because by so
doing a man would betray his brother's sins instead of cor-
recting them, as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi.). Now
by bringing forward witnesses one makes known a brother's
sin to others. Therefore in the case of secret sins one ought
not to bring witnesses forward before the pubhc denuncia-
tion.

Obj. 2. Further, Man should love his neighbour as him-
self. Now no man brings in witnesses to prove his own
secret sin. Neither therefore ought one to bring forward
witnesses to prove the secret sin of our brother.

Obj. 3. Further, Witnesses are brought forward to prove
something. But witnesses afford no proof in secret matters.
Therefore it is useless to bring witnesses forward in such cases.

Obj. 4. Further, Augustine says in his Rule that before
bringing it to the notice of witnesses . . . it should be put
before the superior. Now to bring a matter before a superior
or a prelate is to tell the Church. Therefore witnesses should
not be brought forward before the public denunciation.

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matth. xviii. 16) : Take
with thee one or two more, that in the ynouth of two, etc.

/ answer that, The right way to go from one extreme to
another is to pass through the middle space. Now Our
Lord wished the beginning of fraternal correction to be
hidden, when one brother corrects another between this one
and himself alone, while He wished the end to be public,
when such a one would be denounced to the Church. Con-
sequently it is befitting that a citation of witnesses should
be placed between the two extremes, so that at first the
brother's sin be indicated to a few, who will be of use without

II. ii. I 29

Q. 33. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 450

being a hindrance, and thus his sin be amended without
dishonouring him before the pubhc.

Reply Obj. 1. Some have understood the order of fraternal
correction to demand that we should first of all rebuke our
brother secretly, and that if he listens, it is well; but if he
listen not, and his sin be altogether hidden, they say that
we should go no further in the matter, whereas if it has
already begun to reach the ears of several by various signs,
we ought to prosecute the matter, according to Our Lord's
command. But- this is contrary to what Augustine says
in his rule that we are hound to reveal a brother's sin, if it
will cause a worse corruption in the heart. Wherefore we
must say otherwise that when the secret admonition has
been given once or several times, as long as there is prob-
able hope of his amendment, we must continue to admonish
him in private, but as soon as we are able to judge with any
probability that the secret admonition is of no avail, we
must take further steps, however secret the sin may be,
and call witnesses, unless perhaps it were thought probable
that this would not conduce to our brother's amendment,
and that he would become worse : because on that account
one ought to abstain altogether from correcting him, as
stated above (A. 6).

Reply Obj. 2. A man needs no witnesses that he may
amend his own sin : yet they may be necessary that we may
amend a brother's sin. Hence the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 3. There may be three reasons for citing wit-
nesses. First, to show that the deed in question is a sin,
as Jerome says : secondly, to prove that the deed was done,
if repeated, as Augustine says (loc. cit.) : thirdly, to prove
that the man who rebuked his brother, has done what he could,
as Chrysostom says (Horn, in Matth. Ixi.).

Reply Obj. 4. Augustine means that the matter ought to
be made known to the prelate before it is stated to the
witnesses, in so far as the prelate is a private individual
who is able to be of more use than others, but not that it
is to be told him as to the Church, i.e. as holding the posi-
tion of judge.

QUESTION XXXIV.

OF HATRED.

{In Six Articles.)

We must now consider the vices opposed to charity:
(i) hatred, which is opposed to love: (2) sloth and envy,
which are opposed to the joy of charity: (3) discord and
schism, which are contrary to peace : (4) offence and scandal,
which are contrary to beneficence and fraternal correction.
Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
(i) Whether it is possible to hate God ? (2) Whether
hatred of God is the greatest of sins ? (3) Whether hatred
of one's neighbour is always a sin ? (4) Whether it is the
greatest of all sins against our neighbour ? (5) Whether
it is a capital sin ? (6) From what capital sin does it arise ?

First Article,
whether it is possible for anyone to hate god ?

We proceed thus to the First A rticle : —

Objection i. It seems that no man can hate God. For
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv.) that the first good and heau-
tifiil is an object of love and dilectioji to all. But God is
goodness and beauty itself. Therefore He is hated by none.

Ohj. 2. Further, In the Apocryphal books of Esdras (3. iv.,
36, 39) it is written that all things call upon truth . . . and
(all men) do well like of her works. Now (lod is the very
truth according to John xiv. 6. Therefore all love God,
and none can hate Him.

Ohj. 3. Further, Hatred is a kind of aveision. Rut accord-

451

Q. 34. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 452

ing to-Dionysius {Div. Nom. i.) -God draws all things to Him-
self. Therefore none can hate Him.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. Ixxiii. 23) : The pride of
them that hate Thee ascendeth continually, and (John xv. 24) :
But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father.

I answer that, As shown above (I. -II., Q. XXIX., A. i),
hatred is a movement of the appetitive power, which power
is not set in motion save by something apprehended. Now
God can be apprehended by man in two ways ; first, in Him-
self, as when He is seen in His Essence; secondly, in His
effects, when, to wit, the invisible things of God . . . are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made
(Rom. i. 20). Now God in His Essence is goodness itself,
which no man can hate — for it is natural to good to be loved.
Hence it is impossible for one who sees God in His Essence,
to hate Him.

Moreover some of His effects are such that they can no-
wise be contrary to the human will, since to be, to live, to
understand, which are effects of God, are desirable and lov-
able to all. Wherefore again God cannot be an object of
hatred if we consider Him as the Author of suchlike effects.
Some of God's effects, however, are contrary to an inor-
dinate will, such as the infliction of punishment, and the
prohibition of sin by the Divine Law. Suchlike effects are
repugnant to a will debased by sin, and as regards the con-
sideration of them, God may be an object of hatred to some,
in so far as they look upon Him as forbidding sin, and in-
flicting punishment.

Reply Obj. i. This argument is true of those who see
God's Essence, which is the very essence of goodness.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument is true in so far as God is
apprehended as the cause of such effects as are naturally
beloved of all, among which are the works of Truth who
reveals herself to men.

Reply Obj. 3. God draws all things to Himself, in so far
as He is the source of being, since all things, in as much as
they are, tend to be like God, Who is Being itself.

453 HATRED Q. 34- Art. 2

Second Article,
whether hatred of god is the greatest of sins ?

We proceed thus to the Second A rticle :■ —

Objection 1. It seems that hatred of God is not the greatest
of sins. For the most grievous sin is the sin against the
Holy Ghost, since it cannot be forgiven, according to Matth.
xii. 32. Now hatred of God is not reckoned among the
various kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, as may be seen
from what has been said above (Q. XIV., A. 2). Therefore
hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Sin consists in withdrawing oneself from
God. Now an unbeliever who has not even knowledge of
God seems to be further away from Him than a believer,
who though he hate God, nevertheless knows Him. There-
fore it seems that the sin of unbelief is graver than the sin
of hatred against God.

Obj. 3. Further, God is an object of hatred, only by reason
of those of His effects that are contrary to the will : the chief
of which is punishment. But hatred of punishment is not
the most grievous sin. Therefore hatred of God is not the
most grievous sin.

On the contrary, The best is opposite to the worst, according
to the Philosopher (Ethic, viii.). But hatred of God is
contrary to the love of God, wherein man's best consists.
Therefore hatred of God is man's worst sin.

/ answer that, That the defect in sin consists in its aver-
sion from God, as stated above (Q. X., A. 3) : and this aver-
sion would not have the character of guilt, were it not
voluntary. Hence the nature of guilt consists in a volun-
tary aversion from God.

Now this voluntary aversion from God is directly implied
in the hatred of God, but in other sins, by participation
and indirectly. For just as the will cleaves directly to
what it loves, so does it directly shun what it hates. Hence
when a man hates God, his will is directly averted from
Ciod, whereas in other sins, fornication for instance, a man

Q. 34. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 454

turns away from God, not directly, but indirectly, in so far,
namely, as he desires an inordinate pleasure, to which aver-
sion from God is connected. Now that which is so by
itself, always takes precedence of that which is so by an-
other. Wherefore hatred of God is more grievous than
other sins.

Reply Ohj. i. According to Gregory (Moral, xxv.), it is
one thing not to do good things, and another to hate the giver
of good things, even as it is one thing to sin indeliberately,
and another to sin deliberately. This implies that to hate
God, the giver of all good things, is to sin deliberately,
and this is a sin against the Holy Ghost. Hence it is evi-
dent that hatred of God is chiefly a sin against the Holy
Ghost, in so far as the sin against the Holy Ghost denotes a
special kind of sin: and yet it is not reckoned among the
kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, because it is univer-
sally found in every kind of that sin.

Reply Ohj. 2. Even unbelief is not sinful unless it be
voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it
is sinful. Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man
hates the truth that is proposed to him. Wherefore it is
evident that unbelief derives its sinfulness from hatred of
God, Whose truth is the object of faith; and hence just as a
cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a greater
sin than unbelief.

Reply Ohj. 3. Not everyone who hates his punishment,
hates God the author of punishments. For many hate the
punishments inflicted on them, and yet they bear them
patiently out of reverence for the Divine justice. Where-
to "e Augustine says (Conf. x.) that God commands us to
bear with penal evils, not to love them. On the other hand,
to break out into hatred of God when He inflicts those
punishments, is to hate God's very justice, and that is a
most grievous sin. Hence Gregory says (Moral. . xxv.) :
Even as sometimes it is more grievous to love sin than to do it,
so is it more wicked to hate justice than not to have done it.

455 HATRED Q. 34. Art. 3

Third Article.

WHETHER HATRED OF ONE's NEIGHBOUR IS ALWAYS A SIN ?

Wc proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that hatred of one's neighbour is
not always a sin. For no sin is commanded or counselled
by (iod, according to Prov. viii. 8: All My words are just,
there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them. Now, it is
written (Luke xiv. 26) : // any man come to Me, and hate
not his father and mother . . . he cannot be My disciple.
Therefore hatred of one's neighbour is not always a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Nothing wherein we imitate God can be
a sin. But it is in imitation of God that we hate certain
people: for it is written (Rom. i. 30): Detractors, hateful to
God. Therefore it is possible to hate certain people without
committing a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Nothing that is natural is a sin, for sin
is a wandering away from what is according to nature, accord-
ing to Damascene (De Fide Orthod. ii., iv.). Now it is
natural to a thing to hate whatever is contrary to it, and
to aim at its undoing. Therefore it seems that it is not a
sin to hate one's enemy.

On the contrary, It is written (i John ii. 9) : He that . . .
hateth his brother, is in darkness. Now spiritual darkness
is sin. Therefore there cannot be hatred of one's neighbour
without sin.

/ answer that, Hatred is opposed to love, as stated above
(I. -II., Q. XXIX., A. 2); so that hatred of a thing is evil
according as the love of that thing is good. Now love is
due to our neighbour in respect of what he holds from God,
i.e., in respect of nature and grace, but not in respect of
what he has of himself and from the devil, i.e., in respect of
sin and lack of justice.

Consequently it is lawful to hate the sin in one's brother,
and whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but
we cannot hate our brother's nature and grace without sin.
Now it is part of our love for our brother that we hate the

Q. 34. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 456

fault and the lack of good in him, since desire for another's
good is equivalent to hatred of his evil. Consequently the
hatred of one's brother, if we consider it simply, is always
sinful.

Reply Ohj. i. By the commandment of God (Exod. xx. 12)
we must honour our parents — as' united to us in nature
and kinship. But we must hate them in so far as they
prove an obstacle to our attaining the perfection of Divine
justice.

Reply Ohj. 2. God hates the sin which is in the detractor,
not his nature : so that we can hate detractors without com-
mitting a sin.

Reply Ohj. 3. Men are not opposed to us in respect of the
goods which they have received from God: wherefore, in
this respect, we should love them. But they are opposed
to us, in so far as they show hostility towards us, and this
is sinful in them. In this respect we should hate them, for
we should hate in them the fact that they are hostile to us.

Fourth Article.

whether hatred of our neighbour is the most grievous
sin against our neighbour ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Ohjection i. It seems that hatred of our neighbour is the
most grievous sin against our neighbour. For it is written
(i John iii. 15) : Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.
Now murder is the most grievous of sins against our neigh-
bour. Therefore hatred is also.

Ohj. 2. Further, Worst is opposed to best. Now the best
thing we give our neighbour is love, since all other things
are referable to love. Therefore hatred is the worst.

On the contrary, A thing is said to he evil, hecause it hurts,
as Augustine observes (Enchir. xii.). Now there are sins
by which a man hurts his neighbour more than by hatred,
e.g., theft, murder and adultery. Therefore hatred is not
the most grievous sin.

457 HATRED Q. 34. Art. 5

Moreover, Chrysostom* commenting on Matth. v. 19, He
that shall break one of these least commandments, says : The
commandments of Moses, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not
commit adultery, count for little in their reward, hut they count
for much if they he disoheyed. On the other hand the command-
ments of Christ such as. Thou shalt not he angry, Thou shalt
not desire, are reckoned great in their reward, hut little in the
transgression. Now hatred is an internal movement like
anger and desire. Therefore hatred of one's brother is a
less grievous sin than murder.

/ answer that. Sins committed against our neighbour are
evil on two counts; first by reason of the disorder in the
person who sins, secondly by reason of the hurt inflicted on
the person sinned against. On the first count, hatred is a
more grievous sin than external actions that hurt o\X£ neigh-
bour, because hatred is a disorder of man's will, which is the
chief part of man, and wherein is the root of sin, so that if a
man's outward actions were to be inordinate, without any
disorder in his will, they would not be sinful, for instance,
if he were to kill a man, through ignorance or out of zeal
for justice : and if there be anything sinful in a man's out-
ward sins against his neighbour, it is all to be traced to his
inward hatred.

On the other hand, as regards the huct inflicted on his
neighbour, a man's outward sins are worse than his inward
hatred. This suflices for the Replies to the Objections.

Fifth Article,
whether hatred is a capital sin ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that hatred is a capital sin. For
hatred is directly opposed to charity. Now charity is the
foremost among the virtues, and the mother of all others.
Therefore hatred is the chief of the capital sins, and the
origin of all others.

* Ho))i. X. in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to S. John
Chrysostom.

Q. 34. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 458

Obj. 2. Further, Sins arise in us on account of the inchna-
tions of our passions, according to Rom. vii. 5 : The passions
of sins . . . did work in our members, to bring forth fruit
unto death. Now all other passions of the soul seem to
arise from love and hatred, as was shown above (I. -I I.,
Q. XXV., AA. I, 2). Therefore hatred should be reckoned
one of the capital sins.

Obj. 3. Further, Vice is a moral evil. Now hatred regards
evil more than any other passion does. Therefore it seems
that hatred should be reckoned a capital sin.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral, xxxi.) does not reckon
hatred among the seven capital sins.

/ answer that, As stated above (I. -II., 0. LXXXIV.,
AA. 3, 4), a capital vice is one from which other vices arise
most frequently. Now vice is contrary to man's nature,
in as much as he is a rational animal : and when a thing acts
contrary to its nature, that which is natural to it is cor-
rupted little by little. Consequently it must first of all
fail in that which is less in accordance with its nature, and
last of all in that which is most in accordance with its nature,
since what is first in construction is last in destruction. Now
that which, first and foremost, is most natural to man, is
the love of what is good, and especia-lly love of the Divine
good, and of his neighbour's good. Wherefore hatred,
which is opposed to this love, is not the first but the last
thing in the downfall of virtue resulting from vice : and
therefore it is not a capital vice.

Reply Obj. 1. As stated in Phys. vii., the virtue of a thing
consists in its being well disposed in accordance with its
nature. Hence what is first and foremost in the virtues
must be first and foremost in the natural order. Hence
charity is reckoned the foremost of the virtues, and for the
same reason hatred cannot be first among the vices, as
stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. Hatred of the evil that is contrary to one's
natural good, is the first of the soul's passions, even as love
of one's natural good is. But hatred of one's connatural
good cannot be first, but is something last, because suchlike

459 HATRED q. 34- Art. 6

hatred is a proof of an already corrupted nature, even as
love of an extraneous good.

Reply Ohj. 3. Evil is twofold. One is a true evil, for the
reason that it is incompatible with one's natural good, and
the hatred of such an evil may have priority over the other
passions. There is, however, another which is not a true,
but an apparent evil, which, namely, is a true and con-
natural good, and yet is reckoned evil on account of the
corruption of nature : and the hatred of such an evil must
needs come last. This hatred is vicious, but the former
is not.

Sixth Article,
whether hatred arises from envy ?

Wc proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that hatred does not arise from
envy. For envy is sorrow tor another's good. Now hatred
does not arise from sorrow, for, on the contrary, we grieve
for the presence of the evil we hate. Therefore hatred does
not arise from envy.

Obj. 2. Further, Hatred is opposed to love. Now love
of our neighbour is referred to our love of (lod, as stated
above (0. XXV., A. i : 0. XXVI. , A. 2). Therefore hatred
of our neighbour is referred to our hatred of God. But
hatred of God does not arise from envy, for we do not envy
those who are very far removed from us, but rather those
who seem to be near us, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii.).
Therefore hatred does not arise from envy.

Obj. 3. Further, To one effect there is one cause. Now
hatred is caused by anger, for Augustine says in his Rule
that anger grows into hatred. Therefore hatred does not
arise from envy.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral, xxxi.) that out of
envy cometh hatred.

I ansiver that, As stated above (A. 5), hatred of his neigh-
bour is a man's last step in the path of sin, because it is
opposed to the love which he naturally has for his neighbour.
Now if a man declines from that which is natural, it is

Q. 34- Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 460

because he intends to avoid that which is naturally an object
to be shunned. Now every animal naturally avoids sorrow,
just as it desires pleasure, as the Philosopher states {Ethic.
vii., X.). Accordingly just as love arises from pleasure, so
does hatred arise from sorrow. For just as we are moved to
love whatever gives us pleasure, in as much as for that very
reason it assumes the aspect of good; so we are moved to
hate whatever displeases us, in so far as for this very reason
it assumes the aspect of evil. Wherefore, since envy is
sorrow for our neighbour's good, it follows that our neigh-
bour's good becomes hateful to us, so that out of envy cometh
hatred.

Reply Ohj. i. Since the appetitive power, like the appre-
hensive powder, reflects on its own acts, it follows that there
is a kind of circular movement in the actions of the appeti-
tive power. And so according to the first forward course
of the appetitive movement, love gives rise to desire, whence
follows pleasure when one has obtained what one desired.
And since the very fact of taking pleasure in the good one
loves is a kind of good, it follows that pleasure causes love
And in the same way sorrow causes hatred.

Reply Ohj. 2. Love and hatred are essentially different,
for the object of love is good, which flows from God to crea-
tures, wherefore love is due to God in the first place, and to
our neighbour afterwards. On the other hand, hatred is of
evil, which has no place in God Himself, but only in His
effects, for which reason it has been stated above (A. i),
that God is not an object of hatred, except in so far as He
is considered in relation to His effects, and consequently
hatred is directed to our neighbour before being directed to
God. Therefore, since envy of our neighbour is the mother
of hatred of our neighbour, it becomes, in consequence, the
cause of hatred towards God.

Reply Ohj. 3. Nothing prevents a thing arising from various
causes in various respects, and accordingly hatred may arise
both from anger and from envy. However it arises more
directly from envy, which looks upon the very good of our
neighbour as displeasing and therefore hateful, whereas

46i HATRED Q. 34. Art. 6

hatred arises from anger by way of increase. For at first,
through anger, we desire our neighbour's evil according to
a certain measure, that is in so far as that evil has the aspect
of vengeance : but afterwards, through the continuance of
anger, man goes so far as absolutely to desire his neighbour's
evil, which desire is part of hatred. Wherefore it is evident
that hatred is caused by envy formally as regards the aspect
of the object, but dispositively by anger.

QUESTION XXXV.

OF SLOTH.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the vices opposed to the joy of charity.
This joy is either about the Divine good, and then its con-
trary is sloth, or about our neighbour's good, and then its
contrary is envy. Wherefore we must consider (i) Sloth
and (2) Envy.

Under the fiist head there are four points of inquiry:
(i) Whether sloth is a sin ? (2) Whether it is a special
vice ? (3) Whether it is a mortal sin ? (4) Whether it is
a capital sin ?

First Article,
whether sloth is a sin }

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that sloth is not a sin. For we are
neither praised nor blamed for our passions, according to
the Philosopher (Ethic, ii.). Now sloth is a passion, since
it is a kind of sorrow, according to Damascene (De Fide
Orthod. ii.), and as we stated above (I. -II., Q. XXXV., A. 8).
Therefore sloth is not a sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, No bodily failing that occurs at fixed
times is a sin. But sloth is like this, for Cassian says (De
Instit. Monast. x.) : The monk is troubled with sloth chiefly
about the sixth hour : it is like an intermittent fever, and
inflicts the soul of the one it lays low with burning fires at
regular and fixed intervals. Therefore sloth is not a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, That which proceeds from a good root
is, seemingly, no sin. Now sloth proceeds from a good

462

463 SLOTH Q. 35- Art. i

root, for Cassian says {ibid.) that sloth arises from the fact
that we sigh at being deprived of spiritual fruit, and think
that other monasteries and those which are a long way off are
much better than the one we dwell in : all of which seems to
point to humility. Therefore sloth is not a sin.

Obj. 4. Further, All sin is to be avoided, according to
Ecclus. xxi. 2 : Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent.
Now Cassian says (ibid.) : Experience shows that the onslaught
of sloth is not to be evaded by flight but to be conquered by
resistance. Therefore sloth is not a sin.

On the contrary, Whatever is forbidden in Holy Writ is a
sin. Now such is sloth (acedia) : for it is written (Ecclus.
vi. 26) : Bow down thy shoulder, and bear her, namely spiritual
wisdom, and be not grieved (acedieris) with her bands. There-
fore sloth is a sin.

/ answer that, Sloth, according to Damascene (loc. cit.)
is an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man's
mind, that he wants to do nothing; thus acid things are also
cold. Hence sloth implies a certain weariness of work, as
appears from a gloss on Ps. cvi. 18, Their soul abhorred all
manner of meat, and from the definition of some who say
that sloth is a sluggishness of the mind which neglects to
begin good.

Now this sorrow is always evil, sometimes in itself, some-
times in its effect. For sorrow is evil in itself when it is
about that which is apparently evil but good in reality,
even as, on the other hand, pleasure is evil if it is about
that which seems to be good but is, in truth, evil. Since,
then, spiritual good is a good in very truth, sorrow about
spiritual good is evil in itself. And yet that sorrow also
which is about a real evil, is evil in its effect, if it so oppresses
man as to draw him away entirely from good deeds. Hence
the Apostle (2 Cor. ii. 7) did not wish those who repented
to be swallowed up with overmuch sorroiv.

Accordingly, since sloth, as we understand it here, denotes
sorrow for spiritual good, it is evil on two counts, both in
itself and in point of its effect. Consequently it is a sin,
for by sin we mean an evil movement of the apj^etite, as

Q. 35. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 464

appears from what has been said above (Q. X., A. 2: I. -II.,

Q. LXXIV., A. 4).

Reply Ohj. i. Passions are not sinful in themselves; but
they are blameworthy in so far as they are applied to some-
thing evil, just as they deserve praise in so far as they are
applied to something good. Wherefore sorrow, in itself,
calls neither for praise nor for blame : whereas moderate
sorrow for evil calls for praise, while sorrow for good, and
again immoderate sorrow for evil, call for blame. It is in
this sense that sloth is said to be a sin.

Reply Ohj. 2. The passions of the sensitive appetite may
either be venial sins in themselves, or incline the soul to
mortal sin. And since the sensitive appetite has a bodih'
organ, it follows that on account of some bodily transmuta-
tion a man becomes apt to commit some particular sin.
Hence it may happen that certain sins may become more
insistent, through certain bodily transmutations occurring at
certain fixed times. Now all bodily effects, of tliemselves,
dispose one to sorrow; and thus it is that those who fast are
harassed by sloth towards mid-day, when they begin to feel
the want of food, and to be parched by the sun's heat.

Reply Ohj. 3. It is a sign of humility if a man does not
think too much of himself, through observing his own
faults; but if a man contemns the good things he has re-
ceived from God, this, far from being a proof of humility,
shows him to be ungrateful: and from suchhke contempt
results sloth, because we sorrow for things that we reckon
evil and worthless. Accordingly we ought to think much
of the goods of others, in such a way as not to disparage
those we have received ourselves, because if we did they
would give us sorrow.

Reply Ohj. 4. Sin is ever to be shunned, but the assaults of
sin should be overcome, sometimes by flight, sometimes by
resistance; by flight when a continued . thought increases
the incentive to sin, as in lust ; for which reason it is written
(i Cor. vi. 18): Fly fornication; by resistance, when perse-
verance in the thought diminishes the incentive to sin,
which incentive arises from some trivial consideration. This

465 SLOTH Q. 35. Art. 2

is the case with sloth, because the more we think about
spiritual goods, the more pleasing they become to us, and
forthwith sloth dies away.

Second Article,
whether sloth is a special vice ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — '

Objection i. It seems that sloth is not a special vice. For
that which is common to all vices does not constitute a
special kind of vice. But every vice makes a man sorrowful
about the opposite spiritual good: for the lustful man is
sorrowful about the good of continence, and the glutton
about the good of abstinence. Since then sloth is sorrow
for spiritual good, as stated above (A. i), it seems that sloth
is not a special sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Sloth, through being a kind of sorrow,
is opposed to joy. Now joy is not accounted one special
virtue. Therefore sloth should not be reckoned a special
vice.

Obj. 3. Further, Since spiritual good is a general kind of
object, which virtue seeks, and vice shuns, it does not con-
stitute a special virtue or vice, unless it be detei*mined by
some addition. Now nothing, seemingly, except toil, can
determine it to sloth, if this be a special vice ; because the
reason why a man shuns spiritual goods, is that they are
toilsome, wherefore sloth is a kind of weariness: while dis-
like of toil, and love of bodily repose seem to be due to the
same cause, viz., idleness. Hence sloth would be nothing
but laziness, which seems untrue, for idleness is opposed to
carefulness, whereas sloth is opposed to joy. Therefore
sloth is not a special vice.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral, xxxi.) distinguishes sloth
from the other vices. Therefore it is a special vice.

/ answer that, Since sloth is sorrow for spiritual good, if
we take spiritual good in a general way, sloth will not be a
special vice, because, as stated above (l.-ll.. O. LXXl.,
A. i), every vice shuns the spiritual go'Kl of its opposite

II. ii. 1 ;o

Q. 35. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 466

virtue. Again it cannot be said that sloth is a special vice,
in so far as it shuns spiritual good, as toilsome, or trouble-
some to the body, or as a hindrance to the body's pleasure,
for this again would not sever sloth from carnal vices,
whereby a man seeks bodily comfort and pleasure.

Wherefore we must say that a certain order exists among
spiritual goods, since all the spiritual goods that are in the
acts of each virtue are directed to one spiritual good, which
is the Divine good, about which there is a special virtue,
viz., charity. Hence it is proper to each virtue to rejoice
in its own spiritual good, which consists in its own act,
while it belongs specially to charity to have that spiritual
joy whereby one rejoices in the Divine good. In like manner
the sorrow whereby one is displeased at the spiritual good
which is in each act of virtue, belongs, not to any special
vice, but to every vice, but sorrow in the Divine good about
which charity rejoices, belongs to a special vice, which is
called sloth. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections,

Third Article,
whether sloth is a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that sloth is not a mortal sin. For
every mortal sin is contrary to a precept of the Divine Law.
But sloth seems contrary to no precept, as one may see by
going through the precepts of the Decalogue. Therefore
sloth is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, In the same genus, a sin of deed is no less
grievous than a sin of thought. Now it is not a mortal sin
to refrain in deed from some spiritual good which leads to
God, else it would be a mortal sin not to observe the counsels.
Therefore it is not a mortal sin to refrain in thought from
suchlike spiritual works. Therefore sloth is not a mortal
sin.

Obj. 3. Further, No mortal sin is to be found in a perfect
man. But sloth is to be found in a perfect man : for Cassian

467 SLOTH Q. 35- Art. 3

says (De Instit. Ccenob. x.) that sloth is well known to the
solitary, and is a most vexatious and persistent foe to the
hermit. Therefore sloth is not always a mortal sin.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. vii. 20) : The sorrow
of the world worketh death. But such is sloth; for it is not
sorrow according to God, which is contrasted with sorrow of
the world. Therefore it is a mortal sin.

/ answer that. As stated above (L-IL, Q. LXXXVIIL,
AA. I, 2), mortal sin is so called because it destroys the
spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby -God
dwells in us. Wherefore any sin which by its veiy nature
is contrary to charity is a mortal sin by reason of its genus.
And such is sloth, because the proper effect of charity is
joy in God, as stated above (Q. XXVIII., A. i), while sloth
is sorrow about spiritual good in as much as it is a Divine
good. Therefore sloth is a mortal sin in respect of its
genus.

But it must be observed with regard to all sins that are
mortal in respect of their genus, that they are not mortal,
save when they attain to their perfection. Because the con-
summation of sin is in the consent of reason : for we are speak-
ing now of human sins consisting in human acts, the principle
of which is the reason. Wherefore if the sin be a mere
beginning of sin in the sensuality alone, without attaining
to the consent of reason, it is a venial sin on account of the
imperfection of the act. Thus in the genus of adultery, the
concupiscence that goes no further than the sensuality is a
venial sin, whereas if it reach to the consent of reason, it is
a mortal sin. So too, the movement of sloth is sometimes
in the sensuality alone, by reason of the opposition of the flesh
to the spirit, and then it is a venial sin; whereas sometimes
it reaches to the reason, which consents in the dishke, horror
and detestation ol the Divine good, on account of the flesh
utterly prevailing over the spirit. In this case it is evident
that sloth is a mortal sin.

Reply Obj. i. Sloth is opposed to the precept about hal-
lowing the Sabbath-day. For this precept, in so far as it is
a moral precept, implicitly commands the mind to rest in

Q. 35. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 468

God: and sorrow of the mind about the Divine good is
contrary thereto.

Reply Ohj. 2. Sloth is not an aversion of the mind from any
spiritual good, but from the Divine good, to which the mind
is obhged to adhere. Wherefore if a man is sorry because
someone forces him to do acts of virtue that he is not bound
to do, this is not a sin of sloth; but when he is sorry to have
to do something for God's sake.

Reply Ohj. 3. Imperfect movements of sloth are to be
found in holy men, but they do not reach to the consent
of reason.

Fourth Article,
whether sloth should be accounted a capital vice ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that sloth ought not to be accounted
a capital vice. For a capital vice is one that moves a man
to sinful acts, as stated above (Q. XXXIV., A. 5) . Now sloth
does not move one to action, but on the contrary withdraws
one from it. Therefore it should not be accounted a capital
sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, A capital sin is one to which daughters are
assigned. Now Gregory (Moral, xxxi.) assigns six daughters
to sloth, viz. malice, spite, faint-heartedness, despair, sluggish-
ness in regard to the commandments, wandering oj the mind
after unlawful things. Now these do not seem in reality to
arise from sloth. For spite is, seemingly, the same as hatred,
which arises from envy, as stated above (Q. XXXIV., A. 6) ;
malice is a genus which contains all vices, and, in like manner,
a wandering of the mind after unlawful things is to be found
in every vice ; sluggishness about the commandments seems
to be the same as sloth, while faint-heartedness and despair
may arise from any sin. Therefore sloth is not rightly ac-
counted a capital sin.

Ohj. 3. Further, Isidore distinguishes the vice of sloth
from the vice of sorrow, saying (De Sunmo Bono) that
in so far as a man shirks his duty because it is distasteful

469 SLOTH Q. 35. Art. 4

and burdensome, it is sorrow, and in so far as he is inclined
to undue repose, it is sloth : and of sorrow he says that it
gives rise to spite, faint-heartedness, bitterness, despair,
whereas he states that from sloth seven things arise, viz.,
idleness, drowsiness, uneasiness of the mind, restlessness of
the body, instability, loquacity, curiosity. Therefore it seems
that either Gregory or Isidore has wrongly assigned sloth
as a capital sin together with its daughters.

On the contrary. The same Gregory (loc. cit.) states that
sloth is a capital sin, and has the daughters aforesaid.

/ answer that. As stated above (I. -II., Q. LXXXIV.,
AA. 3, 4), a capital vice is one which easily gives rise to
others as being their final cause. Now just as we do many
things on account of pleasure, both in order to obtain it,
and through being moved to do something under the impulse
of pleasure, so again we do many things on account of sorrow,
either that we may avoid it, or through being exasperated
into doing something under pressure thereof. Wherefore,
since sloth is a kind of sorrow, as stated above (A. 2 : I. -II.,
Q. XXXV., A. 8), it is fittingly reckoned a capital sin.

Reply Obj. i. Sloth by weighing on the mind, hinders us
from doing things that cause sorrow: nevertheless it induces
the mind to do certain things, either because they are in
harmony with sorrow, such as weeping, or because they are
a means of avoiding sorrow.

Reply Obj. 2. Gregory fittingly assigns the daughters of sloth.
For since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic, viii.), no man
can be a long time in company with what is painful and un-
pleasant, it follows that something arises from sorrow in two
ways: first, that man shuns whatever causes sorrow; sec-
ondly, that he passes to other things that give him pleasure :
thus those who find no joy in spiritual pleasures, have re-
course to pleasures of the body, according to the Philosopher
[Ethic. X.). Now in the avoidance of sorrow the order
observed is that man at first flies from unplesant objects,
and secondly he struggles against such things as cause soirow.
Now spiritual goods which are the object of the son*ow of
sloth, are both end and means. Avoidance of the end is

Q. 35. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 470

the result of despair, while avoidance of those goods which
are the means to the end, in matters of difficulty which come
under the counsels, is the effect oi faint-heartedness, and in
matters of common righteousness, is the effect of sluggish-
ness about the commandments. The struggle against spiri-
tual goods that cause sorrow is sometimes with men who
lead others to spiritual goods, this is called spite ; and some-
times it extends to the spiritual goods themselves, when a
man goes so far as to detest them, and this is properly called
malice. In so far as a man has recourse to external objects
of pleasure, the daughter of sloth is called wandering after
unlawful things. From this it is clear how to reply to the
objections against each of the daughters: for malice does
not denote here that which is generic to all vices, but must
be understood as explained. Nor is spite taken as synony-
mous with hatred, but for a kind of indignation, as stated
above : and the same applies to the others.

Reply Ohj. 3. This distinction between sorrow and sloth
is also given by Cassian (De Instit Ccenob. ix., x.). But
Gregory more fittingly {loc. cit.) calls sloth a kind of sorrow,
because, as stated above (A. 2), sorrow is not a distinct vice,
in so far as a man shirks a distasteful and burdensome work,
or sorrows on account of any other cause whatever, but only
in so far as he is sorry on account of the Divine good, which
sorrow belongs essentially to sloth ; since sloth seeks undue
lest in so far as it spurns the Divine good. Moreover the
things which Isidore reckons to arise from sloth and sorrow,
are reduced to those mentioned by Gregory: for bitterness
which Isidore states to be the result of sorrow, is an effect of
spite. Idleness and drowsiness are reduced to sluggishness
about the precepts; for some are idle and omit them altogether,
while others are drowsy and fulfil them with negligence.
All the other five which he reckons as effects of sloth, belong
to the wandering of the mind after unlawful things. This
tendency to wander, if it reside in the mind itself that is
desirous of rushing after various things without rhyme or
reason, is called uneasiness of the mind, but if it pertains to
the imaginative power, it is called curiosity ; if it affect the

471 SLOTH Q. 35. Art. 4

speech it is called loquacity ; and in so far as it affects a
body that changes place, it is called restlessness of the body,
when, to wit, a man shows the unsteadiness of his mind, by
the inordinate movements of members of his body; while if
it causes the body to move from one place to another, it is
called instability ; or instability may denote changeableness
of purpose.

QUESTION XXXVI.

OF ENVY.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider envy, and under this head there
are four points of inquiry: (i) What is envy ? (2) Whether
it is a sin ? (3) Whether it is a mortal sin ? (4) Whether
it is a capital sin, and which are its daughters ?

First Article,
whether envy is a kind of sorrow ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that envy is not a kind of sorrow.
For the object of sorrow is an evil. But the object of envy
is a good, for Gregory says (Moral, v.) of the envious man
that self-inflicted pain wounds the pining spirit, which is
racked by the prosperity of another. Therefore envy is not
a kind of sorrow.

Obj. 2. Further, Likeness is a cause, not of sorrow but
rather of pleasure. But likeness is a cause of envy: for the
Philosopher says {Rhet. ii.): Men are envious of such as are
like them in genus, in knowledge, in stature, in habit, or in
reputation. Therefore envy is not a kind of sorrow.

Obj. 3. Further, Sorrow is caused by a defect, wherefore
those who are in great defect are inclined to sorrow, as stated
above (I. -II., Q. XLVIL, A. 3) when we were treating of
the passions. Now those who lack little, and who love
honours, and who are considered wise, are envious, accord-
ing to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii.). Therefore envy is not

a kind of sorrow.

472

473 ENVY Q. 36. Art. i

Obj. 4. Further, Sorrow is opposed to pleasure. Now
opposite effects have not one and the same cause. There-
fore, since the recollection of goods once possessed is a cause
of pleasure, as stated above (l.-II., Q. XXXII., A. 3) it will
not be a cause of sorrow. But it is a cause of envy; for the
Philosopher says [Rhet. ii.) that we envy those who have or
have had things that befitted ourselves, or which we possessed
at some time. Therefore sloth is not a kind of sorrow.

On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orthod. ii.) calls
envy a species of sorrow, and says that envy is sorrow for
another's good.

I answer that, The object of a man's sorrow is his own evil.
Now it may happen that another's good is apprehended
as one's own evil, and in this way sorrow can be about
another's good. But this happens in two ways: first, when
a man is sorry about another's good, in so far as it threatens
to be an occasion of harm to himself, as when a man grieves
for his enemy's prosperity, for fear lest he may do hirn
some harm : suchlike sorrow is not envy, but rather an effect
of fear, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii.).

Secondly, another's good may be reckoned as being one's
own evil, in so far as it conduces to the lessening of one's
own good name or excellence. It is in this way that envy
grieves for another's good: and consequently men are
envious of those goods in which a good name consists, and
about which men like to be honoured and esteemed, as the
Philosopher remarks (Rhet. ii.).

Reply Obj. i. Nothing hinders what is good for one from
being reckoned as evil for another: and in this way it is
possible for sorrow to be about good, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. Since envy is about another's good name
in so far as it diminishes the good name a man desires to
have, it follows that a man is envious of those only whom
he wishes to rival or surpass in reputation. But this does
not apply to people who are far removed from one another :
for no man, unless he be out of his mind, endeavours to
rival or surpass in reputation those who are far above him.
Thus a conmioner does not envy the king, nor does the king

Q. 36. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 474

envy a commoner whom he is far above. Wherefore a man
envies not those who are far removed from him, whether in
place, time, or station, but those who are near him, and
whom he strives to rival or surpass. For it is against our
will that these should be in better repute than we are, and
that gives rise to sorrow. On the other hand, likeness
causes pleasure in so far as it is in agreement with the
will.

Reply Ohj. 3. A man does not strive for mastery in matters
where he is very deficient ; so that he does not envy one who
surpasses him in such matters, unless he surpass him by
little, for then it seems to him that this is not beyond him,
and so he makes an effort; wherefore, if his effort fails
through the other's reputation surpassing his, he grieves.
Hence it is that those who love to be honoured are more
envious; and in like manner the fainthearted are envious,
because all things are great to them, and whatever good
may befal another, they reckon that they themselves have
been bested in something great. Hence it is written (Job
V. 2) : Envy slayeth the little one, and Gregory says (Moral.
V.) that we can envy those only whom we think better in some
respect than ourselves.

Reply Ohj. 4. Recollection of past goods in so far as we
have had them, causes pleasure; in so far as we have lost
them, causes sorrow; and in so far as others have them,
causes envy, because that, above all, seems to belittle our
reputation. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii.) that
the old envy the young, and those who have spent much in
order to get something, envy those who have got it by spend-
ing little, because they grieve that they have lost their goods,
and that others have acquired goods.

Second Article,
whether envy is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —
Objection i. It seems that envy is not a sin. For Jerome
says to Loeta about the education of her daughter [Ep. cvii.) :

475 ENVY Q. 36. Art. 2

Let her have companions, so that she may learn together with
them, envy them, and he nettled when they are praised. But
no one should be advised to commit a sin. Therefore envy
is not a sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, Envy is sorrow for another's good, as Dama-
scene says (De Fide Orthod. ii.). But this is sometimes
praiseworthy: for it is written (Prov. xxix. 2): When the
wicked shall hear rule, the people shall mourn. Therefore
envy is not always a sin.

Ohj. 3. Further, Envy denotes a kind of zeal. But there
is a good zeal, according to Ps. Ixviii. 10 : The zeal of Thy
house hath eaten me up. Therefore envy is not always
a sin.

Ohj. 4. Further, Punishment is condivided with fault.
But envy is a kind of punishment : for Gregory says (Moral.
V.) : When the foul sore of envy corrupts the vanquished heart,
the very exterior itself shows how forcihly the mind is urged
by madness. For paleness seizes the complexion, the eyes
are weighed down, the spirit is inflamed, while the limhs are
chilled, there is frenzy in the heart, there is gnashing with the
teeth. Therefore envy is not a sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Gal. v. 26) : Let us not he
made desirous of vainglory, provoking one another, envying
one another.

I answer that, As stated above (A. i), envy is sorrow for
another's good. Now this sorrow may come about in four
ways. First, when a man grieves for another's good,
through fear that it may cause harm either to himself, or to
some other goods. This sorrow is not envy, as stated above
(A. i), and may be void of sin. Hence Gregory says (Moral
xxii.): It very often happens that without charity heing lost,
both the destruction of an enemy rejoices us, and again his
glory, without any sin of envy, saddens us, since, when he falls,
we believe that some are deservedly set up, and when he pros-
pers, we dread lest many suffer unjustly.

Secondly, we may grieve over another's good, not because
he has it, but because, the good which he has, we have not :
and this, properly speaking is zeal, as the Philosopher says

Q. 36. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 476

(Rhet. ii.). And if this zeal be about virtuous goods, it is
praiseworthy, according to i Cor. xiv., i. : Be zealous for
spiritual gifts : while, if it be about temporal goods, it may
be either sinful or sinless. Thirdly, one may grieve over
another's good, because he who happens to have that good
is unworthy of it. Such sorrow as this cannot be occasioned
by virtuous goods, which make a man righteous, but, as the
Philosopher states, is about riches, and those things which
can accrue to the worthy and the unworthy; and he calls
this sorrow i/e^ecr:?,* saying that it belongs to good morals.
But he says this, because he considered temporal goods in
themselves, in so far as they may seem great to those who
look not to eternal goods : whereas, according to the teach-
ing of faith, temporal goods that accrue to those who are
unworthy, are so disposed according to God's just ordinance,
either for the correction of those men, or for their con-
demnation, and such goods are as nothing in comparison
with the goods to come, which are prepared for good men.
Wherefore sorrow of this kind is forbidden in Holy Writ,
according to Ps. xxxvi i : Be not emulous of evil doers, nor
envy them that work iniquity, and elsewhere (Ps. Ixxii. 2, 3) :
My steps had well nigh slipped, for I was envious of the
wicked, when I saw the prosperity of sinners. if — ^ Fourthly, we
grieve over a man's good, in so far as his good surpasses
ours; this is envy properly speaking, and is always sinful,
as also the Philosopher states {Rhet. ii.), because to do so
is to grieve over what should make us rejoice, viz. over our
neighbour's good.

Reply Obj. i. Envy there denotes the zeal with which we
ought to strive to progress with those who are better than
we are.

Reply Obj. 2. This argument considers sorrow for another's
good in the first sense given above.

Reply Obj. 3. Envy differs from zeal,, as stated above.
Hence a certain zeal may be good, whereas envy is always evil.

* The nearest equivalent is indignation. The use of the word
nemesis to signify revenge does not represent the original Greek.

•\ Douay, — because I had a zeal on occasion of the wicked, seeing
the prosperity of sinners.

477 ENVY g. 36. Art. 3

Reply Ohj. 4. Nothing hinders a sin from being penal
accidentally, as stated above (I.-II., Q. LXXXVIL, A.2 )
when we were treating of sins.

Third Article,
whether envy is a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that envy is not a mortal sin. For
since envy is a kind of sorrow, it is a passion of the sensi-
tive appetite. Now there is no mortal sin in the sensuality,
but only in the reason, as Augustine declares (De Trin. xii.).*
Therefore envy is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, There cannot be mortal sin in infants.
But envy can be in them, for Augustine says (Conf. i.) :
/ myself have seen and known even a baby envious, it could
not speak, yet it turned pale and looked bitterly on its foster-
brother. Therefore envy is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Every mortal sin is contrary to some
virtue. But envy is contrary, not to a virtue but to
ve^sdL'^, which is a passion, according to the Philosopher
(Rhet. ii.). Therefore envy is not a mortal sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Job v. 2) : E^ivy slayeth the
little one. Now nothing slays spiritually, except mortal sin.
Therefore envy is a mortal sin.

/ answer that. Envy is a mortal sin, in respect of its genus.
For the genus of a sin is taken from its object ; and envv
according to the aspect of its object is contrary to charity,
whence the soul derives its spiritual life, according to
I John iii. 14, We know that we have passed from death to life,
because we love the brethren. Now the object both of charity
and of envy is our neighbour's good, but by contrary move-
ments, since charity rejoices in our neighbour's good, while
envy grieves over it, as stated above (A.i). Therefore it
is evident that envy is a mortal sin in respect of its
genus.

Nevertheless, as stated above ((). XXX\'., A. 4: I. -II.,

* Cf. l.-ll., g. LXXIV.. A. .|.

Q. 36. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 478

Q. LXXIL, A. 5, ad 1), in every kind of mortal sin we find
certain imperfect movements in the sensuality, which arc
venial sins: such are the first movement of concupiscence,
in the genus of adultery, and the first movement of anger,
in the genus of murder, and so in the genus of envy we find
sometimes even in perfect men certain first movements,
which are venial sins.

Reply Ohj. I. The movement of envy in so far as it is a
passion of the sensuality, is an imperfect thing in the genus
of human acts, the principle of which is the reason, so that
envy of that kind is not a mortal sin. The same applies
to the envy of little children who have not the use of reason :
wherefore the Reply to the Second Objection is manifest.

Reply Ohj. 3. According to the Philosopher [Rhet. ii.),
envy is contrary both to ve^ecn^ and to pity, but for differ-
ent reasons. For it is directly contrary to pity, their prin-
cipal objects being contrary to one another, since the envious
man grieves over his neighbour's good, whereas the pitiful
man grieves over his neighbour's evil, so that the envious
have no pity, as he states in the same passage, nor is the
pitiful man envious. On the other hand, envy is contrary
to vifjueat^ on the part of the man whose good grieves the en-
vious man, for veixerrL^ is sorrow for the good of the undeserv-
ing according to Ps. Ixxii. 3: / was envious of the wicked,
when I saw the prosperity of sinners,"^ whereas the envious
grieves over the good of those who are deserving of it.
Hence it is clear that the former contrariety is more direct
than the latter. Now pity is a virtue, and an effect proper
to charity,: so that envy is contrary to pity and charity.

Fourth Article,
whether envy is a capital vice ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article ;—

Objection i. It seems that envy is not a capital vice.
For the capital vices are distinct from their daughters.
Now envy is the daughter of vainglory; for the Philosopher

* Cf. footnote on p. 476.

479 ENVY Q. 36. Art. 4

says {Rhet. ii.) that those who love honour and glory are more
envious. Therefore envy is not a capital vice.

Ohj. 2. Further, The capital vices seem to be less grave
than the other vices which arise from them. For Gregory
says (Moral, xxxi) : The leading vices seem to worm their way
into the deceived mind under some kind of 'pretext, hut those which
follow them provoke the soul to all kinds of outrage, and confuse
the mind with their wild outcry. Now envy is seemingly a
most grave sin, for Gregory says (Moral, v.) : Though in every
evil thing that is done, the venom of our old enemy is infused
into the heart of man, yet in this wickedness the serpent stirs
his whole bowels and discharges the bane of spite fitted to enter
deep into the mind. Therefore envy is not a capital sin.

Ohj. 3. Further, It seems that its daughters are unfit-
tingly assigned by Gregory (Moral, xxxi.), who says that
from envy arise hatred, tale-bearing, detraction, joy at our
neighbour's misfortunes, and grief for his prosperity. For
joy at our neighbour's misfortunes and grief for his pros-
perity seem to be the same as envy, as appears from what
has been said above (A. 3). Therefore these should not
be assigned as daughters of envy.

On the contrary stands the authority of Gregory (Moral.
xxxi.) who states that envy is a capital sin and assigns the
aforesaid daughters thereto.

/ answer that, Just as sloth is grief for a Divine spiritual
good, so envy is grief for our neighbour's good. Now it has
been stated above (Q. XXXV., A. 4) that sloth is a capital
vice for the reason that it incites man to do certain things,
with the purpose either of avoiding sorrow or of satisfying
its demands. Wherefore envy is accounted a capital vice
for the same reason.

Reply Ohj. i. As Gregory says (Moral, xxxi.), the capital
vices are so closely akin to one another that one springs from the
other. For the first offspring of pride is vainglory, which by
corrupting the mind it occupies begets envy, since while-it craves
for the power 'Of an empty name, it repines for fear lest another
should acquire that poiver. Consequently the notion of a
capital vice does not exclude its originating from another

Q. 36. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 480

vice, but it demands that it should have some principal
reason for being itself the origin of several kinds of sin.
However it is perhaps because envy manifestly arises from
vainglory, that it is not reckoned a capital sin, either by
Isidore (De Summo Bono) or by Cassian {De Instit. Ccenob. v.) .

Reply Ohj. 2. It does not follow from the passage quoted
that envy is the greatest of sins, but that when the devil
tempts us to envy, he is enticing us to that which has its chief
place in his heart, for as quoted further on in the same passage,
hy the envy of the devil, death came into the world (Wis. ii. 24).

There is, however, a kind of envy which is accounted
among the most grievous sins, viz. envy of another's
spiritual good, which envy is a sorrow for the increase of
God's grace, and not merely for our neighbour's good.
Hence it is accounted a sin against the Holy Ghost, because
thereby a man envies, as it were, the Holy Ghost Himself,
Who is glorified in His works.

Reply Ohj. 3. The number of envy's daughters may be
understood for the reason that in the struggle aroused by
envy there is something by way of beginning, something
by way of middle, and something by way of term. The
beginning is that a man strives to lower another's reputation,
and this either secretly, and then we have tale-hearing, or
openly, and then we have detraction. — The middle consists
in the fact that when a man aims at defaming another, he
is either able to do so, and then we have joy at another's
misfortune, or he is unable, and then we have grief at another's
prosperity . — The term is hatred itself, because just as good
which delights causes love, so does sorrow cause hatred,
as stated above (Q. XXXIV., A. 6). — Grief at another's
prosperity is in one way the very same as envy, when, to wit,
a man grieves over another's prosperity, in so far as it gives
the latter a good name, but in another way it is a daughter of
envy, in so far as the envious man sees his neighbour prosper
notwithstanding his efforts to prevent it. On the other
hand, joy at another's misfortune is not directly the same as
envy, but is a result thereof, because grief over our neigh-
bour's good which is envy, gives rise to joy in his evil.

QUESTION XXXVll.

OF DISCORD, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO PEACE.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider the sins contrary to peace, and first
we shall consider discord which is in the heart, secondly
contention, which is on the lips, thirdly, those things
which consist in deeds, viz. schism, quarrelling, war, and
sedition. Under the first head there are two points of
inquiry: (i) Whether discord is a sin ? (2) Whether it is
a daughter of vainglory ?

First Article,
whether discord is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that discord is not a sin. For to
disaccord with man is to sever oneself from another's will.
But this does not seem to be a sin, because God's will alone,
and not our neighbour's, is the rule of our own will. There-
fore discord is not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Whoever induces another to sin, sins
also himself. But it appears not to be a sin to incite others
to discord, for it is written (Acts xxiii. 6) that Paul, knowing
that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees,
cried out in the council : Men brethren , / am a Pharisee, the son
of Pharisees, concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead
I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose
a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. There-
fore discord is not a sin.
II. ii. I 481 31

Q. 37. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' 482

Ohj. 3. Further, Sin, especially mortal sin, is not to be
found in a holy man. But discord is to be found even
among holy men, for it is written (Acts xv. 39) : There arose
a dissension between Paul and Barnabas, so that they departed
one from another. Therefore discord is not a sin, and least
of all a mortal sin.

On the contrary, Dissensions, that is, discords, are reckoned
among the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20), of which it is said
afterwards (verse 21) that they who do such things shall not
obtain the kingdom of God. Now nothing, save mortal sin,
excludes man from the kingdom of God. Therefore discord
is a mortal sin.

/ answer that, Discord is opposed to concord. Now, as
stated above (Q. XXIX., AA. i, 3) concord results from
charity, in as much as charity directs many hearts together
to one thing, which is chiefly the Divine good, secondarily,
the good of our neighbour. Wherefore discord is a sin, in
so far as it is opposed to this concord.

But it must be observed that this concord is destroyed by
discord in two ways: first, directly, secondly, accidentally.
Now, human acts and movements are said to be direct
when they are according to one's intention. Wherefore
a man directly disaccords with his neighbour, when he
knowingly and intentionally dissents from the Divine good
and his neighbour's good, to which he ought to consent.
This is a mortal sin in respect of its genus, because it is
contrary to charity, although the first movements of such
discord are venial sins by reason of their being imperfect
acts.

The accidental in human acts is that which occurs beside
the intention. Hence when several intend a good pertaining
to God's honour, or our neighbour's profit, while one deems
a certain thing good, and another thinks contrariwise, the
discord is in this case accidentally contrary to the Divine
good or that of our neighbour. Suchlike discord is neither
sinful nor against charity, unless it be accompanied by an error
about things necessary to salvation, or by undue obstinacy,
since it has also been stated above (Q. XXIX., AA. i, 3, ad 2)

483 DISCORD g. 37. Art. 1

that the concord which is an effect of charity, is union of
wills not of opinions. It follows from this that discord is
sometimes the sin of one party only, for instance, when
one wills a good which the other knowingly resists; while
sometimes it implies sin in both parties, as when each
dissents from the other's good, and loves his own.

Reply Ohj. i. One man's will considered in itself is not
the rule of another man's will; but in so far as our neigh-
bour's will adheres to God's will, it becomes in consequence,
a rule regulated according to its proper measure. Where-
fore it is a sin to disaccord with such a will, because by that
very fact one disaccords with the Divine rule.

Reply Ohj. 2. Just as a man's will that adheres to God is
a right rule, to disaccord with which is a sin, so too a man's
will that is opposed to God is a perverse rule, to disaccord
with which is good. Hence to cause a discord, whereby a
good concord resulting from charity is destroyed, is a
grave sin: wherefore it is written (Prov. vi. 16) : Six things
there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul
detesteth, which seventh is stated {verse 19) to be him that
soweth discord among brethren. On the other hand, to arouse
a discord whereby an evil concord (i.e. concord in an evil
will) is destroyed, is praiseworthy. In this way Paul was
to be commended for sowing discord among those who
concorded together in evil, because Our Lord also said of
Himself (Matth. x. 34) : / came not to send peace, hut the
sword.

Reply Ohj. 3. The discord between Paul and Barnabas
was accidental and not direct : because each intended some
good, yet the one thought one thing good, while the other
thought something else, which was owing to human de-
ficiency: for that controversy was not about things necessary
to salvation. Moreover all this was ordained by Divine
providence, on account of the good which would ensue.

Q. 37 Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 484

Second Article,
whether discord is a daughter of vainglory ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that discord is not a daughter of
vainglory. For anger is a vice distinct from vainglory.
Now discord is apparently the daughter of anger, according
to Prov. XV. 18 : A passionate- man stirreth up strifes. There-
fore it is not a daughter of vainglory.

Ohj. 2. Further, Augustine expounding the words of
John vii. 39, As yet the Spirit was not given, says
(Tract, xxxii.) Malice severs, charity unites. Now discord
is merely a separation of wills. Therefore discord arises
from malice i.e. envy, rather than from vainglory.

Obj. 3. Further, Whatever gives rise to many evils, would
seem to be a capital vice. Now such is discord, because
Jerome in commenting on Matt. xii. 25, Every kingdom
divided against itself shall be made desolate, says : Just as
concord makes small things thrive, so discord brings the greatest
things to ruin. Therefore discord should itself be reckoned
a capital vice, rather than a daughter of vainglory.

On the contrary stands the authority of Gregory (Moral.
xxxi.) .

I answer that. Discord denotes a certain disunion of wills,
in so far, to wit, as one man's will holds fast to one thing,
while the other man's will holds fast to something else. Now
if a man's will holds fast to its own ground, this is due to the
act that he prefers what is his own to that which belongs
to others, and if he do this inordinately, it is due to pride
and vainglory. Therefore discord, whereby a man holds
to his own way oi thinking, and departs from that of others,
is reckoned to be a daughter of vainglory.

Reply Obj. i. Strife is not the same as discord, for strife
consists in external deeds, wherefore it is becoming that
it should arise from anger, which incites the mind to hurt
one's neighbour; whereas discord consists in a divergence
in the movements of wills, which arises from pride or vain-
glory, for the reason given above.

485 DISCORD Q. 37. Art. 2

Reply Ohj. 2. In discord we may consider that which is
the term wherefrom, i.e. another's will from which we recede,
and in this respect it arises from envy; and again we may
consider that which is the term whither, i.e. something of
our own to which we cling, and in this respect it is caused
by vainglory. And since in every moment the term whither
is more important than the term wherefrom (because the
end is of more account than the beginning), discord is
accounted a daughter of vainglory rather than of envy,
though it may arise from both for different reasons, as
stated.

Reply Ohj. 3. The reason why concord makes small
things thrive, while discord brings the greatest to ruin, is
because the more united a force is, the stronger it is, while the
more disunited it is the weaker it becomes (De Causis. xvii.).
Hence it is evident that this is part of the proper effect of
discord which is a disunion of wills, and in no way indicates
that other vices arise from discord, as though it were a
capital vice.

QUESTION XXXVIII.

OF CONTENTION.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider contention, in respect of which there
are two points of inquiry: (i) Whether contention is a
mortal sin ? (2) Whether it is a daughter of vainglory ?

First Article,
whether contention is a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that contention is not a mortal sin.
For there is no mortal sin in spiritual men: and yet con-
tention is to be found in them, according to Luke xxii. 24:
And there was also a strife amongst the disciples of Jesus,
which of them should . . . be the greatest. Therefore con-
tention is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, No well disposed man should be pleased
that his neighbour commit a mortal sin. But the Apostle
says (Philip, i. 17) : Some out of contention preach Christ,
and afterwards he says {verse 18) : In this also I rejoice, yea,
and will rejoice. Therefore contention is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 3. Further, It happens that people contend either
in the courts or in disputations, without any spiteful pur-
pose, and with a good intention, as, for example, those
who contend by disputing with heretics. Hence a gloss on
I Kings xiv. i, It came to pass one day, etc. says: Catholics
do not raise contentions with heretics, unless they are first
challenged to dispute. Therefore contention is not a mortal
sin.

486

487 CONTENTION Q. 38. Art. i

Obj. 4. Further, Job seems to have contended with God,
according to Job xxxix. 32 : Shall he that contendeth with
God he so easily silenced ? And yet Job was not guilty of
mortal sin, since the Lord said of him (ibid. xlii. 7) : You
have not spoken the thing that is right before me, as my servant
Job hath. Therefore contention is not always a mortal sin.

On the contrary, It is against the precept of the Apostle
who says (2 Tim. ii. 14) : Contend not in words. Moreover
(Gal. V. 20) contention is included among the works of the
flesh, and as stated there (verse 21) they who do such things
shall not obtain the kingdom of God. Now whatever excludes
a man from the kingdom of God and is against a precept,
is a mortal sin. Therefore contention is a mortal sin.

/ answer that, To contend is to tend against some one.
Wherefore just as discord denotes a contrariety of wills,
so contention signifies contrariety of speech. For this
reason when a man contrasts various contrary things in a
speech, this is called contentio, which Tully calls one of the
rhetorical colours (Rhet. ad Keren, iv.), where he says that
it consists in developing a speech from contrary things, for
instance: Adulation has a pleasant beginning, and a most
bitter end.

Now contrariety of speech may be looked at in two ways :
first with regard to the intention of the contentious party,
secondly, with regard to the manner of contending. As
to the intention, we must consider whether he contends
against the truth, and then he is to be blamed, or against
falsehood, and then he should be praised. As to the manner,
we must consider whether his manner of contending is in
keeping with the persons and the matter in dispute, for then
it would be praiseworthy, hence Tully says (Rhet. ad Her en.
iii.) that contention is a sharp speech suitable for proof and
refutation, — or whether it exceeds the demands of the persons
and matter in dispute, in which case it is blameworthy.

Accordingly if we take contention as denoting a dis-
claimer of the truth and an inordinate manner, it is a mortal
sin. Thus Ambrose defines contention: Contention is a
disclaimer of the truth with clamorous confidence. If, how-

Q. 38. Art. i THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 488

ever, contention denote a disavowal of what is false, with
the proper measure of acrimony, it is praiseworthy : whereas,
if it denote a disavowal of falsehood, together with an
inordinate manner, it can be a venial sin, unless the con-
tention be conducted so inordinately, as to give scandal
to others. Hence the Apostle after saying (2 Tim. ii. 14) :
Contend not in words, adds, for it is to no profit, but to the
subverting of the hearers.

Reply Obj. i. The disciples of Christ contended together,
not with the intention of disclaiming the truth, since each
one stood up for what he thought was true. Yet there was
inordinateness in their contention, because they contended
about a matter which they ought not to have contended
about, viz. the primacy of honour; for they were not
spiritual men as yet, as a gloss says on the same passage;
and for this reason Our Lord checked them.

Reply Obj. 2. Those who preached Christ out of contention,
were to be blamed, because, although they did not gainsay
the truth of faith, but preached it, yet they did gainsa^^
the truth, by the fact that they thought they would raise
affliction to the Apostle who was preaching the truth of faith.
Hence the Apostle rejoiced not in their contention, but in
the fruit that would result therefrom, namely that Christ
would be made known, — since evil is sometimes the occasion
of good results.

Reply Obj. 3. Contention is complete and is a mortal sin
when, in contending before a judge, a man gainsays the
truth of justice, or in a disputation, intends to impugn the
true doctrine. In this sense Cathohcs do not contend
against heretics, but the reverse. But when, whether in
court or in a disputation, it is incomplete, i.e. in respect of
the acrimony of speech, it is not always a mortal sin.

Reply Obj. 4. Contention here denotes an ordinary dis-
pute. For Job had said (xiii. 3): / will speak to the Al-
mighty, and I desire to reason with God : yet he intended not
to impugn the truth, but to defend it, and in seeking
the truth thus, he had no wish to be inordinate in mind or
in speech.

489 CONTENTION Q. 38- Art. 2

Second Article,
whether contention is a daughter of vainglory ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that contention is not a daughter
of vainglory. For contention is akin to zeal, wherefore it
is written (i Cor. iii. 3) : Whereas there is among you zeal
(Douay, — envying) and contention, are you not carnal, and
walk according to men ? Now zeal pertains to envy. There-
fore contention arises rather from envy.

Ohj. 2. Further, Contention is accompanied by raising of
the voice. But the voice is raised on account of anger,
as Gregory declares [Moral, xxxi.). Therefore contention
too arises from anger.

Ohj. 3. Further, Among other things knowledge seems
to be the matter of pride and vainglory, according to i Cor.
viii. i: Knowledge puffcth up. Now contention is often due
to lack of knowledge, and by knowledge we do not impugn
the truth, we know it. Therefore contention is not a daughter
of vainglory.

On the contrary stands the authority of Gregory {Moral.
xxxi.).

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. XXXVII., A. 2),
discord is a daughter of vainglory, because each of the
disaccording parties clings to his own opinion, rather than
acquiesce with the other. Now it is proper to pride and
vainglory to seek one's own glory. And just as people are
discoidant when they hold to their own opinion in their
hearts, so are they contentious when each defends his own
opinion by words. Consequent^ contention is reckoned
a daughter of vainglory for the same reason as discord.

Reply Ohj. i. Contention, like discord, is akin to envy
in so far as a man severs himself from the one with whom
he is discordant, or with whom he contends, but in so far
as a contentious man holds to something, it is akin to pride
and vainglory, because, to wit, he clings lo his own opinion,
as stated above (Q. XXXVII., A. 2, ad i).

Q. 38. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 490

Reply Ohj. 2. The contention of which we are speaking
puts on a loud voice, for the purpose of impugning the truth,
so that it is not the chief part of contention. Hence it
does not follow that contention arises from the same source
as the raising of the voice.

Reply Ohj. 3. Pride and vainglory are occasioned chiefly
by goods even those that are contrary to them, for instance,
when a man is proud of his humility: for when a thing
arises in this way, it does so not directly but accidentally,
in which way nothing hinders one contrary from arising
out of another. Hence there is no reason why the per se
and direct effects of pride or vainglory, should not result
from the contraries of those things which are the occasion"
of pride. .

QUESTION XXXIX.

OF SCHISM.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider the vices contrary to peace,
which belong to deeds: such are schism, strife, sedition,
and war. In the first place, then, about schism, there are
four points of inquiry: (i) Whether schism is a special sin ?
(2) Whether it is graver than unbehef ? (3) Of the power
exercised by schismatics: (4) Of the punishment inflicted
on them.

First Article,
whether schism is a special sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that schism is not a special sin.
For schism, as Pope Pelagius I. says (Epist. ad Viator, et
Pancrat.), denotes a division. But every sin causes a
division, according to Isa. lix. 2: Your sins have divided
between you and your God. Therefore schism is not a s]x*cial
sin.

Obj. 2. Further, A man is apparently a schismatic if
he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man dis-
obey the commandments of the Church, because sin, accord-
ing to Ambrose (De Parad. viii.) is disobedience against the
heavenly commandments. Therefore every sin is a schism.

Obj. 3. Further, Heresy also divides a man from the unity
of faith. If, therefore, the word schism denotes a division,
it would seem not to differ, as a special sin, from the sin of
unbelief.

On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust, xx.; Contra

491

Q. 39. Art. i THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 492

Crescon. ii.) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for
he says that a schismatic is one who holds the same faith,
and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure
in the mere disunion of the community , whereas a heretic is
one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church.
Therefore schism is not a generic sin.

I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. viii.), schism takes
its name/rom being a scission of minds, and scission is opposed
to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly
and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in
the physical order, the species is not constituted by that
which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential
is that which is intended, and that which results beside the
intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of
schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason
that the schismatic intends to sevei himself from that unity
which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not
only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love,
but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who,
wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the
unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the
particular unity of several individuals among themselves
is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual
adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate
to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the
Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual con-
nexion or communion of the members of the Church, and
again in the subordination of all the members of the Church
to the one head, according to Coloss. ii. 18, 19: Puffed up
by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which
the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with
nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.
Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose vicegerent in the
Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are
those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and
to hold communion with those members of the Church who
acknowledge his supremacy.

493 SCHISM Q. 39. Art. 2

Reply Ohj. 1. The division between man and God that
results from sin is not intended by the sinner: it happens
beside his intention as a result of his turning inordinately
to a mutable good, and so it is not schism properly so called.

Reply Ohj. 2. The essence of schism consists in rebelliously
disobeying the commandments : and I say rebelliously, since
a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of
the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. But
every sinner does not do this, wherefore not every sin is
a schism.

Reply Ohj. 3. Heresy and schism are distinguished in
respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially
and directly. For heresy is essentially opposed to faith,
while schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesi-
astical charity. Wherefore just as faith and charity are
different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity,
so too schism and heresy are different vices, although who-
ever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely.
This is what Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle
to Titus (iii. 10) : / consider the difference hetween schism
and heresy to he that heresy holds false doctrine while schism
severs a man from the Church. Nevertheless, just as the
loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to
I Tim. i. 6: From which things, i.e., charity and the like,
some going astray, are turned aside into vain hahhling, so too,
schism is the road to heresy. Wherefore Jerome adds {ibid.)
that at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a
difference between schism and heresy : yet there is no schism
that docs not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear
to have had a reason for separating frovi the Church.

Second Article,
whether schism is a graver sin than unbelief ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that schism is a graver sin than
unbelief. For the graver sin meets with a graver punish-
ment, according to Deut. xxv. 2: According to the measure

Q. 39. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 494

of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes he. Now we
find the sin of schism punished more severely than even
the sin of unbehef or idolatry: for we read (Exod. xxxii. 28)
that some were slain by the swords of their fellow men on
account of idolatry: whereas of the sin of schism we read
(Num. xvi. 30) : If the Lord do a new thing, and the earth
opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that
belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall
know that they have blasphemed the Lord God. Moreover
the ten tribes who were guilty of schism in revolting from
the rule of David were most severely punished (4 Kings xvii.) .
Therefore the sin of schism is graver than the sin of unbelief.

Obj. 2. Further, The good of the multitude is greater and
more godlike than the good of the individual, as the Philo-
sopher states (Ethic, i.). Now schism is opposed to the
good of the multitude, namely, ecclesiastical unity, whereas
unbelief is contrary to the particular good of one man,
namely the faith of an individual. Therefore it seems that
schism is a graver sin than unbelief.

Obj. 3. Further, A greater good is opposed to a greater
evil, according to the Philosopher {Ethic, x.). Now schism
is opposed to charity, which is a greater virtue than faith
to which unbelief is opposed, as shown above (Q. X., A. 2:
Q. XXIIL, A. 6). Therefore schism is a graver sin than
unbelief.

On the contrary, That which results from an addition to
something else surpasses that thing either in good or in
evil. Now heresy results from something being added to
schism, for it adds corrupt doctrine, as Jerome declares in
the passage quoted above (A. i, ad 3). Therefore schism
is a less grievous sin than unbelief.

/ answer that, The gravity of a sin can be considered in
two ways : first, according to the species of that sin, secondly,
according to its circumstances. And since particular cir-
cumstances are infinite in number, so too they can be varied
in an infinite number of ways : wherefore if one were to ask
in general which of two sins is the graver, the question
must be understood to refer to the gravity derived from

495 SCHISM Q. 39. Art. 2

the sin's genus. Now the genus or species of a sin is taken
from its object, as shown above (I. -II., Q. LXXIL, A. i:
Q. LXXIIL, A. 3). Wherefore the sin which is opposed
to the greater good is, in respect of its genus, more grievous,
for instance a sin committed against God is graver than a
sin committed against one's neighbour.

Now it is evident that unbehef is a sin committed against
God Himself, according as He is in Himself the First Truth,
on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to
ecclesiastical unity, which is a participated good, and a
lesser good than God Himself. Wherefore it is manifest
that the sin of unbehef is generically more grievous than
the sin of schism, although it may happen that a particular
schismatic sins more grievously than a particular unbeliever,
either because his contempt is greater, or because his sin
is a source of greater danger, or for some similar reason.

Reply Ohj. i. It had already been declared to that people
by the law which they had received that there was one
God, and that no other God was to be worshipped by them ;
and the same had been confirmed among them by many
kinds of signs. Consequently there was no need for those
who sinned against this faith by falling into idolatry, to
be punished in an unwonted manner: it was enough that
they should be punished in the usual way. On the other
hand, it was not so well known among them that Moses
was always to be their ruler, and so it behoved those who
rebelled against his authority to be punished in a mira-
culous and unwonted manner.

We may also reply by saying that the sin of schism was
sometimes more severely punished in that people, because
they were inclined to seditions and schisms. For it is
written (i Esd. iv. 15) : This city since days gone by has
rebelled against its kings : and seditions and wars were raised
therein.''^ Now sometimes a more severe punishment is
inflicted for an habitual sin (as stated above, I. -II., O.
CV., A. 2, fl^ 9), because punishments are medicines intended

* Vulg., — This city is a rebellions city, and hurtful to the kings
and provinces, and . . . wars were raised therein of old.

Q. 39. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '* 4^)0

to keep man away from sin: so that where there is greater
proneness to sin, a more severe punishment ought to be
inflicted. As regards the ten tribes, they were punished
not only for the sin of schism, but also for that of idolatry,
as stated in the passage quoted.

Reply Ohj. 2. Just as the good of the multitude is greater
than the good of a unit in that multitude, so is it less than
the extrinsic good to which that multitude is directed,
even as the good of a rank in the army is less than the
good of the commander-in-chief. In like manner the good
of ecclesiastical unity, to which schism is opposed, is less
than the good of Divine truth, to which unbelief is opposed.

Reply Ohj. 3. Charity has two objects; one is its principal
object and is the Divine goodness, the other is its secondary
object and is our neighbour's good. Now schism and other
sins against our neighbour, are opposed to charity in respect
of its secondary good, which is less than the object of faith,
for this is God Himself; and so these sins are less grievous
than unbehef. On the other hand, hatred of God, which
is opposed to charity in respect of its principal object, is
not less grievous than unbehef. Nevertheless of all sins
committed by man against his neighbour, the sin of schism
would seem to be the greatest, because it is opposed to the
spiritual good of the multitude.

Third Article,
whether schismatics have any power ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that schismatics have some power.
For Augustine says [Contra Donat. i.) : Just as those who
come hack to the Church after heing haptized, are not haptized
again, so those who return after heing ordained, are not ordained
again. Now Order is a kind of power. Therefore schis-
matics have some power since they retain their Orders.

Ohj. 2. Further, Augustine says [De Unico Bapt.) : One
who is separated can confer a sacrament even as he can have
it. But the power of conferring a sacrament is a very

497 SCHISM Q. 39. Art. 3

great power. Therefore schismatics who are separated
from the Church, have a spiritual power.

Obj. 3. Further, Pope Urban II. says: We command that
persons consecrated by bishops who were themselves con-
secrated according to the Catholic rite, but have separated
themselves by schism from the Roman Church, should be
received mercifully and that their Orders should be acknow-
ledged, when they return to the unity of the Church, provided
they be of commendable life and knowledge. But this would
not be so, unless spiritual power were retained by schismatics.
Therefore schismatics have spiritual power.

On the contrary, Cyprian says in a letter [Ep. Hi.) :
He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of
peace, and severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and
from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power
or honour.

I answer that. Spiritual power is twofold, the one sacra-
mental, the other a power of jurisdiction. The sacramental
power is one that is conferred by some kind of consecration.
Now all the consecrations of the Church are immovable so
long as the consecrated thing remains: as appears even in
inanimate things, since an altar, once consecrated, is not
consecrated again unless it has been broken up. Conse-
quently such a power as this remains, as to its essence, in
the man who has received it by consecration, as long as
he lives, even if he fall into schism or heresy: and this is
proved from the fact that if he come back to the Church,
he is not consecrated anew. Since, however, the lower
power ought not to exercise its act, except in so far as it is
moved by the higher power, as may be seen also in the
physical order, it follows that such persons lose the use of
their power, so that it is not lawful for them to use it. Yet
if they use it, this power has its effect in sacramental acts,
because therein man acts only as God's instrument, so
that sacramental effects are not precluded on account of
any fault whatever in the person who confers the sacrament.
On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that
which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Sucli

II. ii. I XI

Q. 39. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 498

a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably :
so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and
consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate,
nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if
they do, it is invalid.

Accordingly when it is said that suchlike persons have
no spiritual power, it is to be understood as referring either
to the second power, or if it be referred to the first power,
not as referring to the essence of the power, but to its
lawful use.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Fourth Article.

whether it is right that schismatics should be
punished wtth excommunication ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that schismatics are not rightly
punished with excommunication. For excommunication
deprives a man chiefly of a share in the sacraments. But
Augustine says [Contra Donat. vi.) that Baptism can be
received from a schismatic. Therefore it seems that ex-
communication is not a fitting punishment for schismatics.

Obj. 2. Further, It is the duty of Christ's faithful to lead
back those who have gone astray, wherefore it is written
against certain persons (Ezech. xxxiv. 4) : That which was
driven away you have not brought again, neither have you
sought that which was lost. Now schismatics are more easily
brought back by such as may hold communion with them.
Therefore it seems that they ought not to be excommuni-
cated.

Obj. 3. Further, A double punishment is not inflicted for
one and the same sin, according to Nahum i. 9: God will
not judge the same twice.*' Now some receive a temporal
punishment for the sin of schism, according to XXIII.,
Q. v., where it is stated: Both divine and earthly laws
have laid down that those who are severed from the unity of

* Septuagint Version.

499 SCHISM g. 39. Art. 4

the Church, and disturb her peace, must he punished hy the
secular power. Therefore they ought not to be punished
with excommunication.

On the contrary, It is written (Num. xvi. 26) : Depart from
the tents of these wicked men, those, to wit, who had caused the
schism, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you he involved in
their sins.

I answer that, According to Wis. xi. 17, By what things
a man sinneth, hy the same also he should he punished (Vulg., —
he is tormented). Now a schismatic, as shown above (A. i),
commits a twofold sin: first by separating himself from
communion with the members of the Church, and in this
respect the fitting punishment for schismatics is that they
be excommunicated. Secondly, they refuse submission to
the head of the Church, wherefore, since they are unwilling
to be controlled by the Church's spiritual power, it is just
that they should be compelled by the secular power.

Reply Ohj. i.. It is not lawful to receive Baptism from a
schismatic, save in a case of necessity, since it is better
for a man to quit this life, marked with the sign of Christ,
no matter from whom he may receive it, whether from a
Jew or a pagan, than deprived of that mark, which is be-
stowed in Baptism.

Reply Ohj. 2. Excommunication does not forbid the inter-
course whereby a person by salutary admonitions leads
back to the unity of the Church those who are separated
from her. Indeed this very separation brings them back
somewhat, because through confusion at their separation,
they are sometimes led to do penance.

Reply Ohj. 3. The punishments of the present life are
medicinal, and therefore when one punishment does not
sufiice to compel a man, another is added: just as ph^^sicians
employ several bodily medicines when one has no effect.
In like manner the Church, when excommunication does not
sufficiently restrain certain men, employs the compulsion
of the secular arm. If, however, one punishment suffices,
another should not be employed.

QUESTION XL.

OF WAR.

{In Four Articles.)

We must now consider war, under which head there are
four points of inquiry: (i) Whether some kind of war is
lawful ? (2) Whether it is lawful for clerics to fight ?

(3) Whether it is lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes ?

(4) Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days ?

First Article,
whether it is always sinful to wage war ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that it is always sinful to wage
war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin.
Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord
with punishment, according to Matth. xxvi. 52: All that
take the sword shall perish with the sword. Therefore all
wars are unlawful.

Obj. 2. Further, Whatever is contrary to a Divine precept
is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it
is written (Matth. v. 39) : But I say to you not to resist evil ;
and (Rom. xii. 19) : Not revenging yourselves, my dearly
beloved, but give place unto wrath. Therefore war is always
sinful.

Obj. 3. Further, Nothing, except sin, is contrary to an
act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore
war is always a sin.

Obj. 4. Further, The exercise of a lawful thing is itself
lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike
exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by

500

501 WAR y. 40. Art. I

the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are
deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that
war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of
the centurion {cf. Ep. ad Marcel., cxxxviii.) : If the Christian
Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary
advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to
cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether.
On the contrary, they were told : ' Do violence to no man ;
. . . and be content with your pay.' * If he commanded them
to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things
are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by
whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the
business of a private individual to declare war, because he can
seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal oi his superior.
Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to
summon together the people, which has to be done in war-
time. And as the care of the common weal is committed
to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch
over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province
subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have
recourse to the sw^ord in defending that common weal
against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers,
according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. xiii. 4) : He
beareth not the sword in vain : for he is God*s minister, an
avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so too,
it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in
defending the common weal against external enemies.
Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. Ixxxi. 4) :
Rescue the poor : and deliver the needy out of the hand of the
sinner ; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust.
xxii.): The natural order conducive to peace among mortals
demands that the power to declare and counsel ivar should be
in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who
are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it

* Luke iii. \.\.

Q. 40. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 502

on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says
(Q. X., super Jos.): A just war is wont to be described
as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be
punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted
by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have
a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement
of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says
{De Verb. Dom."^): True religion looks upon as peaceful
those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandise-
ment, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of
punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. For it may
happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority,
and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through
a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says {Contra Faust.
xxii.) : The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for
vengeance, an unpaciflc and relentless spirit, the fever of
revolt, the lust of power, and suchlike things, all these are
rightly condemned in war.

Reply Obj. 1. As Augustine says {Contra Faust, xxii.):
Jo take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life
of anyone, without the command or permission of superior
or lawful authority. On the other hand, to have recourse
to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the
sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for
justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to
take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another,
wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even
those who make sinful use of the sword are not always
slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own
sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished
eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply Obj. 2. Suchlike precepts, as Augustine observes {De
Serm. Dom. in Monte i.), should always be borne in readiness
of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary,
to refrain from resistance or self-defence. Nevertheless

* The words quoted are to be found not in S. Augustine's works
but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii.

503 WAR Q. 40. Art. 2

it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for
the common good, or for the good of those with whom he
is fighting. Hence Augustine says [Ep. ad Marcellin.):
Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is
necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For
when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is
good for him to he vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless
than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity,
and an evil will, like an internal enemy.

Reply Obj. 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace,
and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil
peace, which Our Lord came not to send upon earth (Matth.
X. 34). Hence Augustine says {Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix.):
We do not seek peace in order to he at war, hut we go to war
that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring,
so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and
bring them to the prosperity of peace.

Reply Obj. 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms
are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and
perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times
warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence
they were called exercises of arms or bloodless wars, as
Jerome states in an epistle (c/. Veget., — De Re Milit. i.).

Second Article,
whether it is lawful for clerics and bishops

TO FIGHT ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems lawful for clerics and bishops to
light. For, as stated above (A. i), wars are lawful and just
in so far as they protect the poor and the entire common
weal from suffering at the hands of the foe. Now this
seems to be above all the duty of prelates, for Gregory
says [Horn, in Ev. xiv.): The wolf comes upon the sheep, when
any unjust and rapacious man oppresses those who are faithful
and humble. But he who was thought to be the shepherd.

Q. 40. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 504

and was not, leaveth the sheep, and flieth, for he fears lest the
wolf hurt him, and dares not stand up against his injustice.
Therefore it is lawful for prelates and clerics to fight.

Ohj. 2. Further, Pope Leo IV. writes (XXIII., Q. VIII.,
can. Igitur): As untoward tidings had frequently come from
the Saracen side, some said that the Saracens would come to
the port of Rome secretly and covertly ; for which reason we
commanded our people to gather together, and ordered them
to go down to the sea-shore. Therefore it is lawful for bishops
to fight.

Ohj. 3. Further, Apparently, it comes to the same whether
a man does a thing himself, or consents to its being done
by another, according to Rom. i. 32 : They who do such things,
are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, hut they
also that consent to them that do them. Now those, above
all, seem to consent to a thing, who induce others to do it.
But it is lawful for bishops and clerics to induce others
to fight: for it is written (XXIII., Q. VIII. , can. Hortatu)
that Charles went to war with the Lombards at the instance
and entreaty of Adrian, bishop of Rome. Therefore they
also are allowed to fight.

Ohj. 4. Further, Whatever is right and meritorious in
itself, is lawful for prelates and clerics. Now it is sometimes
right and meritorious to make war, for it is written (XXIII. ,
Q. VIII. , can. Omni timore) that if a man die for the true
faith, or to save his country, or in defence of Christians, God
will give him a heavenly reward. Therefore it is lawful for
bishops and clerics to fight.

On the contrary, It was said to Peter as representing
bishops and clerics (Matth. xxvi. 52): Put up again thy
sword into the scahhard (Vulg., — its place"^). Therefore it
is not lawful for them to fight.

/ answer that. Several things are requisite for the good of
a human society : and a number of things- are done better
and quicker by a number of persons than by one, as the
Philosopher observes {Polit. i.), while certain occupations
are so inconsistent with one another, that they cannot be

* Scabbard is the reading in John xviii. 11.

505 WAR Q. 40. Art. 2

fittingly exercised at the same time; wherefore those who
are deputed to important duties are forbidden to occupy
themselves with things of small importance. Thus accord-
ing to human laws, soldiers who are deputed to warlike
pursuits are forbidden to engage in commerce ((^od. xii., 35,
De Re Mint.).

Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with
the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons. The
first reason is a general one, because, to wit, warlike pur-
suits are full of unrest, so that they hinder the mind very
much from the contemplation of Divine things, the praise of
God, and prayers for the people, which belong to the duties
of a cleric. Wherefore just as commercial enterprises
are forbidden to clerics, because they unsettle the mind too
much, so too are warlike pursuits, according to 2 Tim. ii. 4:
No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself ivith secular
business. The second reason is a special one, because,
to wit, all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry
of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented
sacramentally, according to i Cor. xi. 26: As often as you
shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the
death of the Lord, until He come. Wherefore it is un-
becoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more
fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood
for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in
their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that
those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular.
Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can law-
fully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Where-
fore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war
is directed to the shedding of blood.

Reply Obj. i. Prelates ought to withstand not only the
wolf who brings spiritual death upon the flock, but also
the pillager and the oppressor who work bodily harm;
not, however, by having recourse themselves to material
arms, but by means of spiritual weapons, according to the
saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. x. 4): The weapons of our
warfare arc not carnal, but mighty through God. Such are

Q. 40. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 506

salutary warnings, devout prayers, and, for those who are
obstinate, the sentence of excommunication.

Reply Obj. 2. Prelates and clerics may, by the authority
of their superiors, take part in wars, not indeed by taking
up arms themselves, but by affording spiritual help to
those who fight justly, by exhorting and absolving them,
and by other like spiritual helps. Thus in the Old Testa-
ment (Jos. vi. 4) the priests were commanded to sound
the sacred trumpets in the battle. It was for this purpose
that bishops or clerics were first allowed to go to the
front : and it is an abuse of this permission, if any of them
take up arms themselves.

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above (Q. XXIIL, A. 4, ad 2)
every power, art or virtue that regards the end, has to dis-
pose that which is directed to the end. Now, among the
faithful, carnal wars should be considered as having for
their end the Divine spiritual good to which clerics are
deputed. Wherefore it is the duty of clerics to dispose
and counsel other men to engage in just wars. For they
are forbidden to take up arms, not as though it were a sin,
but because such an occupation is unbecoming their
personality.

Reply Obj. 4. Although it is meritorious to wage a just
war, nevertheless it is rendered unlawful for clerics, by
reason of their being deputed to works more meritorious
still. Thus the marriage act may be meritorious; and yet
it becomes reprehensible in those who have vowed virginity,
because they are bound to a yet greater gaod.

Third Article,
whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is unlawful to lay ambushes
in war. For it is written (Deut. xvi. 20) : Thou shall
follow justly after that which is just. But ambushes, since
they are a kind of deception, seem to pertain to injustice.
Therefore it is unlawful to lay ambushes even in a just war.

507 WAR Q. 40. Art. 3

Ohj. 2. Further, Ambushes and deception seem to be
opposed to faithfulness even as lies are. But since we are
bound to keep faith with all men, it is wrong to lie to anyone,
as Augustine states {Contra Mend. xv.). Therefore, as one
is bound to keep faith with one's enemy, as Augustine
states [Ep. ad Bonifac. clxxxix.), it seems that it is unlawful
to lay ambushes for one's enemies.

Ohj. 3. Further, It is written (Matth. vii. 12): Whatsoever
you would that men should do to you, do you also to them :
and we ought to observe this in all our dealings with our
neighbour. Now our enemy is our neighbour. Therefore,
since no man wishes ambushes or deceptions to be prepared
for himself, it seems that no one ought to carry on war by
laying ambushes.

On the contrary, Augustine says {QQ. in Heptateuch., Super
Jos., Q. X.): Provided the war he just, it is no concern of
justice whether it he carried on openly or hy ambushes : and he
proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded
Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Jos. viii. 2).

/ answer that, The object of laying ambushes is in order
to deceive the enemy. Now a man may be deceived by
another's word or deed in two ways. First, through being
told something false, or through the breaking of a promise,
and this is always unlawful. No one ought to deceive
the enemy in this way, for there are certain rights of war
and covenants, which ought to he observed even among enemies,
as Ambrose states (De Offic. i.).

Secondly, a man may be deceived by what we say or
do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to
him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even
in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed,
especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according
to Matth. vii. 6: Give not that which is holy, to dogs. Where-
fore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden
from the enemy. For this reason among other things
that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his
purpose lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated
in the Book on Stratagems by Frontinus. Suchlike con-

Q. 40. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA *' 508

cealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be
lawfully employed in a just war.

Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions,
nor are they contrary .to justice or to a well-ordered will.
For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling
that others should hide anything from him.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Fourth Article,
whether it is lawful to fight on holy days ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — •

Objection i. It seems unlawful to fight on holy days. For
holy days are instituted that we may give our time to the
things of God. Hence they are included in the keeping
of the Sabbath prescribed Exod. xx. 8 : for sabbath is inter-
preted rest. But wars are full of unrest. Therefore by
no means is it lawful to fight on holy days.

Obj, 2. Further, Certain persons are reproached (Isa. Iviii.
3) because on fast-days they exacted what was owing
to them, were guilty of strife, and of smiting with the fist.
Much more, therefore, is it unlawful to fight on holy days.

Obj. 3. Further, No ill deed should be done to avoid
temporal harm. But fighting on a holy day seems in itself
to be an ill deed. Therefore no one should fight on a holy
day even through the need of avoiding temporal harm.

On the contrary, It is written (i Machab. ii. 41) : The Jews
rightly determined . . . saying: Whosoever shall come up
against us to fight on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against
him.

I answer that, The observance of holy days is no hindrance
to those things which are ordained to man's safety, even that
of his body. Hence Our Lord argued with the Jews,
saying (John vii. 23): Are you angry at Me because I have
healed the whole man on the Sabbath-day ? Hence physicians
may lawfully attend to their patients on holy days.

Yet much more reason is there for safeguarding the
common weal (whereby many are saved from being slain,

509 WAR Q. 40. Art. 4

and innumerable evils both temporal and spiritual pre-
vented), than the bodily safety of an individual. Therefore,
for the purpose of safeguarding the common weal of the
faithful, it is lawful to carry on a war on holy days, provided
there be need for doing so: because it would be to tempt
(iod, if notwithstanding such a need, one were to choose to
refrain from fighting.

However, as soon as the need ceases, it is no longer
lawful to light on a holy day, for the reasons given : wherefore
this suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

QUESTION XLI.

OF STRIFE*.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider strife, under which head there are
two points of inquiry: (i) Whether strife is a sin ? {2)
Whether it is a daughter of anger ?

FiRvST Article.

WHETHER STRIFE IS ALWAYS A SIN ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that strife is not always a sin. For
strife seems a kind of contention: hence Isidore says
[Etym. ix.) that the word rixosus (quarrelsome) is derived
from the snarling (rictu) of a dog, because the quarrelsome man
is ever ready to contradict ; he delights in brawling, and pro-
vokes contention. Now contention is not always a sin.
Neither, therefore, is strife.

Obj. 2. Further, It is related (Gen. xxvi. 21) that the
servants of Isaac digged another well, and for that they
quarrelled likewise. Now it is not credible that the house-
hold of Isaac quarrelled publicly, without being reproved
by him, supposing it were a sin. Therefore strife is not a
sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Strife seems to be a war between in-
dividuals. But war is not always sinful. Therefore strife
is not always a sin.

071 the contrary, Strifes f are reckoned among the works

* Strife here denotes fighting between individuals.
I The Douay Version has quarrels.

510

511 STRIFE Q. 41. Art. I

of the flesh (Gal. v. 20), and they who do such things shall not
obtain the kingdom of God. Therefore strifes are not only
sinful, but they are even mortal sins.

/ answer that, While contention implies a contradiction
of words, strife denotes a certain contradiction of deeds.
Wherefore a gloss on Gal. v. 20 says that strifes are when
persons strike one ajiother through anger. Hence strife is
a kind of private war, because it takes place between
private persons, being declared not by public authority, but
rather by an inordinate will. Therefore strife is always
sinful. In fact it is a mortal sin in the man who attacks
another unjustly, for it is not without mortal sin that one
inflicts harm on another even if the deed be done by the
hands. But in him who defends himself, it may be without
sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes
a mortal sin ; and this depends on his intention and on his
manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention
be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend
himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot
say properly that there is strife on his part. But if, on the
other hand, his self-defence be inspired by vengeance and
hatred, it is always a sin. It is a venial sin, if a slight
movement of hatred or vengeance obtrude itself, or if
he does not much exceed moderation in defending himself:
but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the
fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm
on him.

Reply Obj. i. Strife is not just the same as contention:
and there are three things in the passage quoted from
Isidore, which express the inordinate nature of strife.
First, the quarrelsome man is always ready to fight, and
this is conveyed by the words, ever ready to contradict,
that is to say, whether the other man says or does well or
ill. Secondly, he delights in quarrelling itself, and so
the passage proceeds, and delights in braiding. Thirdly, he
provokes others to quarrel, wherefore it goes on, and pro-
vokes contention.

Reply Obj. 2. The sense of the text is not that the servants

Q. 41. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 512

of Isaac quarrelled, but that the inhabitants of that country
quarrelled with them: wherefore these sinned, and not the
servants of Isaac, who bore the calumny (cf. Gen. xxi. 20).
Reply Ohj. 3. In order for a war to be just it must be
declared by authority of the governing power, as stated
above (Q. XL., A. i) ; whereas strife proceeds from a private
feeling of anger or hatred. For if the servants of a sovereign
or judge, in virtue of their public authority, attack certain
men and these defend themselves, it is not the former who
are said to be guilty of strife, but those who resist the public
authority. Hence it is not the assailants in this case who
are guilty of strife and commit sin, but those who defend
themselves inordinately.

Second Article,
whether strife is a daughter of anger ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that strife is not a daughter of
anger. For it is written (James iv. i) : Whence are wars and
contentions ? Are they not . . . from your concupiscences,
which war in your members ? But anger is not in the con-
cupiscible faculty. Therefore strife is a daughter, not of
anger, but of concupiscence.

Obj. 2. Further, It is written (Prov. xxviii. 25): He that
boasteth and puffeth up himself, stirreth up quarrels. Now
strife is apparently the same as quarrel. Therefore it
seems that strife is a daughter of pride or vainglory which
make a man boast and puff himself up.

Obj. 3. Further, It is written (Prov. xviii. 6): The lips
of a fool intermeddle with strife. Now folly differs from
anger, for it is opposed, not to meekness, but to wisdom
or prudence. Therefore strife is not a daughter of anger.

Obj. 4. Further, It is written (Prov. x. 12) : Hatred stirreth
up strifes. But hatred arises from envy, according to
Gregory [Moral, xxxi.). Therefore strife is not a daughter
of anger, but of envy.

Obj. 5. Further, It is written (Prov. xvii. 19): He that

513 STRIFE Q. 41. Art. 2

studieth discords , soweth (Vulg., — loveth) quarrels. But
discord is a daughter of vainglory, as stated above (Q.
XXXVII. , A. 2). Therefore strife is also.

On the contrary, Gregory says {Moral, xxxi.) that anger
gives rise to strife ; and it is written (Prov. xv. 18; xxix. 22) :
A passionate man stirreth up strifes.

I answer that, As stated above (A. i), strife denotes an
antagonism extending to deeds, when one man designs to
harm another. Now there are two ways in which one man
may intend to harm another. In one way it is as though
he intended absolutely the other's hurt, which in this case
is the outcome of hatred, for the intention of hatred is
directed to the hurt of one's enemy either openly or secretly.
In another way a man intends to hurt another who knows
and withstands his intention. This is what we mean by
strife, and belongs properly to anger which is the desire
of vengeance: for the angry man is not content to hurt
secretly the object of his anger, he even wishes him to feel
the hurt and know that what he suffers is in revenge for
what he has done, as may be seen from what has been said
above about the passion of anger (I. -II., Q. XLVL, A. 6,
ad 2). Therefore, properly speaking, strife arises from
anger.

Reply Ohj. i. As stated above (I.-IL, Q. XXV., AA. i, 2),
all the irascible passions arise from those of the concupis-
cible faculty, so that whatever is the immediate outcome
of anger, arises also from concupiscence as from its first
root.

Reply Obj. 2. Boasting and puffing up of self which are
the result of anger or vainglory, are not the direct but the
occasional cause of quarrels or strife, because, when a man
resents another being preferred to him, his anger is aroused,
and then his anger results in quarrel and strife.

Reply Obj. 3. Anger, as stated above (I.-II., Q. XLVIII.,

A. 3) hinders the judgment of the reason, so that it bears

a likeness to folly. Hence they have a common effect,

since it is due to a defect in the reason that a man designs

to hurt another inordinately.
II. ii. I 33

Q. 41. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '* 514

Reply Ohj. 4. Although strife sometimes arises from hatred,
it is not the proper effect thereof, because when one man
hates another it is beside his intention to hurt him in a
quarrelsome and open manner, since sometimes he seeks
to hurt him secretly. When, however, he sees himself
prevailing, he endeavours to harm him with strife and quarrel.
But to hurt a man in a quarrel is the proper effect of anger,
for the reason given above.

Reply Ohj. 5. Strifes give rise to hatred and discord
in the hearts of those who are guilty of strife, and so he
that studies, i.e. intends to sow discord among others,
causes them to quarrel among themselves. Even so any
sin may command the act of another sin, by directing it
to its own end. This does not, however, prove that strife
is the daughter of vainglory properly and directly.

QUESTION XLII

OF SEDITION.

{In Two Articles.)

We must now consider sedition, under which head there
are two points of inquiry: (i) Whether it is a special sin ?
(2) Whether it is a mortal sin ?

First Article.

whether sedition is a special sin distinct from

other sins ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that sedition is not a special sin
distinct from other sins. For, according to Isidore (Etym, x.),
a seditious man is one who sows dissent among minds, afid
begets discord. Now, by provoking the commission of a sin,
a man sins by no other kind of sin than that which he pro-
voked. Therefore it seems that sedition is not a special
sin distinct from discord.

Obj. 2. Further, Sedition denotes a kind of division.
Now schism takes its name from scission, as stated
above (Q. XXXIX., A. i). Therefore, seemingly, the sin
of sedition is not distinct from that of schism.

Obj. 3. Further, Every special sin that is distinct from
other sins, is either a capital vice, or arises from some
capital vice. Now sedition is reckoned neither among the
capital vices, nor among those vices which arise from them,
as appears from Moral, xxxi., where both kinds of vice
are enumerated. Therefore sedition is not a special sin,
distinct from other sins.

5^5

Q. 42. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 516

On the contrary, Seditions are mentioned as distinct from
other sins (2 Cor. xii. 20).

I answer that, Sedition is a special sin, having something
in common with war and strife, and differing somewhat
from them. It has something in common with them, in
so far as it implies a certain antagonism, and it differs
from them in two points. First, because war and strife
denote actual aggression on either side, whereas sedition
may be said to denote either actual aggression, or the pre-
paration for such aggression. Hence a gloss on 2 Cor.
xii. 20 says that seditions are tumults tending to fight, when,
to wit, a number of people make preparations with the
intention of fighting. Secondly, they differ in that war
is, properly speaking, carried on against external foes, being
as it were between one people and another, whereas strife
is between one individual and another, or between few
people on one side and few on the other, while sedition, in
its proper sense, is between the mutually dissentient parts
of one people, as when one part of the state rises in tumult
against another part. Wherefore, since sedition is opposed
to a special kind of good, namely the unity and peace of
a people, it is a special kind of sin.

Reply Obj. i. A seditious man is one who incites others
to sedition, and since sedition denotes a kind of discord,
it follows that a seditious man is one who creates discord,
not of any kind, but between the parts of a multitude.
And the sin of sedition is not only in him who sows discord,
but also in those who dissent from one another inordinately.

Reply Obj. 2. Sedition differs from schism in two respects.
First, because schism is opposed to the spiritual unity ol
the multitude, viz. ecclesiastical unity, whereas sedition
is contrary to the temporal or secular unity of the multitude,
for instance of a city or kingdom. Secondly, schism does
not imply any preparation for a material fight as sedition
does, but only a spiritual dissent.

Reply Obj. 3. Sedition, like schism, is contained under
discord, since each is a kind of discord, not between in-
dividuals, but between the parts of a multitude.

517 SEDITION Q. 42. Art. 2

Second Article,
whether sedition is always a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that sedition is not always a mortal
sin. For sedition denotes a tumult tending to fight, accord-
ing to the gloss quoted above (A. i). But fighting is not
always a mortal sin, indeed it is sometimes just and lawful,
as stated above (Q. XL., A. i). Much more, therefore, can
sedition be without a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Sedition is a kind of discord, as stated
above (A. i, ad 3). Now discord can be without mortal
sin, and sometimes without any sin at all. Therefore
sedition can be also.

Obj. 3. Further, It is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude
from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done
without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of
the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest
strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition
without mortal sin.

On the contrary, The Apostle forbids seditions together
with other things that are mortal sins (2 Cor. xii. 20).

/ answer that. As stated above (A. i, ad 2), sedition is
contrary to the unity of the multitude, viz. the people
of a city or kingdom. Now Augustine says {De Civ.
Dei ii.) that wise men understand the word people to designate
not any crowd of persons, but the assembly of those who are-
united together in fellowship recognized by law and for the
common good. Wherefore it is evident that the unity to
which sedition is opposed is the unity of law and common
good: whence it follows manifestly that sedition is opposed
to justice and the common good. Therefore by reason of
its genus it is a mortal sin, and its gravity will be all the
greater according as the common good which it assails
surpasses the private good which is assailed by strife.

Accordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its
authors, who sin most grievously; and secondly it is in those

Q. 42. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 518

who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those,
however, who defend the common good, and withstand the
seditious party, are not themselves seditious, even as
neither is a man to be called quarrelsome because he defends
himself, as stated above (Q. XLL, A. i).

Reply Ohj. i. It is lawful to fight, provided it be for the
common good, as stated above (Q. XL., A. i). But sedition
runs counter to the common good of the multitude, so that
it is always a mortal sin.

Reply Ohj. 2. Discord from what is not evidently good,
may be without sin, but discord from what is evidently
good, cannot be without sin : and sedition is discord of this
kind, for it is contrary to the unity of the multitude, which
is a manifest good.

Reply Ohj. 3. A tyrannical government is not just,
because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the
private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit.
iii. • Ethic, viii.). Consequently there is no sedition in
disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the
tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects
suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than
from the tyrant's government. Indeed it is the tyrant
rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord
and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over
them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive
to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the
multitude.

QUESTION XLIII.

OF SCANDAL.

{In Eight Articles.)

It remains for us to consider the vices which are opposed
to beneficence, among which some come under the head of
injustice, those, to wit, whereby one harms one's neighbour
unjustly. But scandal seems to be specially opposed to
charity. Accordingly we must here consider scandal,
under which head there are eight points of inquiry: (i)
What is scandal ? (2) Whether scandal is a sin ? (3)
M^ether it is a special sin ? (4) Whether it is a mortal
sin ? (5) WTiether the perfect can be scandalized ?
(6) Whether they can give scandal ? (7) Whether spiritual
goods are to be foregone on account of scandal ? (8)
Whether temporal things are to be foregone on account of
scandal ?

First Article.

whether scandal is fittingly defined as being some-
thing less rightly said or done that occasions
spiritual downfall ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that scandal is unfittingly defined
as something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual
downfall. For scandal is a sin as we shall state further on
(A. 2). Now, according to Augustine (Contra Faust, xxii.),
a sin is a word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God^
Therefore the definition given above is insufficient, since
it omits thought or desire.

Obj. 2. Further, Since among virtuous or right acts

519

Q. 43. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 520

one is more virtuous or more right than another, that one
alone which has perfect rectitude would not seem to be a
less right one. If, therefore, scandal is something less
rightly said or done, it follows that every virtuous act
except the best of all, is a scandal.

Obj. 3. Further, An occasion is an accidental cause.
But nothing accidental should enter a definition, because
it does not specify the thing defined. Therefore it is un-
fitting, in defining scandal, to say that it is an occasion.

Obj. 4. Further, Whatever a man does may be the occasion
of another's spiritual downfall, because accidental causes
are indeterminate. Consequently, if scandal is something
that occasions another's spiritual downfall, any deed or
word can be a scandal: and this seems unreasonable.

Obj. 5. Further, A man occasions his neighbour's
spiritual downfall when he offends or weakens him. Now
scandal is condivided with offence and weakness, for the
Apostle says (Rom. xiv. 21): It is good not to eat flesh, and
not to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended,
or scandalized, or weakened. Therefore the aforesaid defini-
tion of scandal is unfitting.

On the contrary, Jerome in expounding Matth. xv. 12,
Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this
word, etc., says: When we read ' Whosoever shall scandalize,'
the sense is ' Whosoever shall, by deed or word, occasion
another's spiritual downfall.'

I answer that, As Jerome observes [ibid.) the Greek
(TKCivhakov may be rendered offence, downfall, or a stumbling
against something. For when a body, while moving along
a path, meets with an obstacle, it may happen to stumble
against it, and be disposed to fall down: such an obstacle
IS a aKcivSaXov.

In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a
man may be disposed to a spiritual downfall by another's
word or deed, in so far, to wit, as one man by his injunction,
inducement or example, moves another to sin; and this is
scandal properly so called.

Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual

521 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. i

downfall, except that which has some lack of rectitude,
since what is perfectly right, secures man against a fall,
instead of conducing to his downfall. Scandal is, therefore,
fittingly defined as something less rightly done or said, that
occasions another's spiritual downfall.

Reply Ohj. i. The thought or desire of evil lies hidden
in the heart, wherefore it does not suggest itself to another
man as an obstacle conducing to his spiritual downfall:
hence it cannot come under the head of scandal.

Reply Ohj. 2. A thing is said to be less right, not because
something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it
has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in
itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil.
Thus, for instance, if a man were to sit at meat in the idol's
temple,"^ though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be
done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain
appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol,
it might occasion another man's spiritual downfall. Hence
the Apostle says (i Thessal. v. 22) : From all appearance of evil
refrain yourselves. Scandal is therefore fittingly described as
something done less rightly, so as to comprise both whatever
is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (I.-IL, Q. LXXV., AA.
2, 3: Q. LXXX., A. i), nothing can be a sufiicient cause of
a man's spiritual downfall, which is sin, save his own will.
Wherefore another man's words or deeds can only be an
imperfect cause, conducing somewhat to that downfall.
For this reason scandal is said to afford not a cause, but
an occasion, which is an imperfect, and not always an
accidental cause. Nor is there any reason why certain
definitions should not make mention of things that are
accidental, since what is accidental to one, may be proper
to something else: thus the accidental cause is mentioned
in the definition of chance [Phys. ii.).

Reply Ohj. 4. Another's word or deed may be the cause
of another's sin in two ways, directly and accidentally.
Directly, when a man either intends, by his evil word or

* I Cor. viii. 10.

Q. 43. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 522

deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so
intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another
into sin: for instance, when a man publicly commits a
sin or does something that has an appearance of sin. In
this case he that does such an act does, properly speaking,
afford an occasion of another's spiritual downfall, wherefore
his act is called active scandal. — One man's word or deed
is the accidental cause of another's sin, when he neither
intends to lead him into sin, nor does what is of a nature
to lead him into sin, and yet this other one, through being ill-
disposed, is led into sin, for instance, into envy of another's
good, and then he who does this righteous act, does not,
so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the other's
downfall, but it is this other one who takes the occasion
according to Rom. vii. 8: Sin taking occasion by the com-
mandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. Where-
fore this is passive, without active scandal, since he that
acts rightly does not, for his own part, afford the occasion
of the other's downfall. Sometimes therefore it happens
that there is active scandal in the one together with passive
scandal in the other, as when one commits a sin being in-
duced thereto by another ; sometimes there is active without
passive scandal, for instance when one, by word or deed,
provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent;
and sometimes there is passive without active scandal,
as we have already said.

Reply Ohj. 5. Weakness denotes proneness to scandal;
while offence signifies resentment against the person who
commits a sin, which resentment may be sometimes with-
out spiritual downfall; and scandal is the stumbling that
results in downfall.

Second Article,
whether scandal is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —
Objection i. It seems that scandal is not a sin. For
sins do not occur from necessity, since all sin is voluntary,

523 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 2

as stated above (I. II., Q. LXXIV., AA. i, 2). Now it is
written (Matth. xviii. 7) : It must needs he that scandals
come. Therefore scandal is not a sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, No sin arises from a sense of dutifulness,
because a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (Matth. vii.
18). But scandal may come from a sense of dutifulness,
for Our Lord said to Peter (Matth. xvi. 23): Thou art a
scandal unto Me, in reference to which words Jerome says
that the Apostle s error was due to his sense of dutifulness, and
such is never inspired by the devil. Therefore scandal is
not always a sin.

Ohj. 3. Further, Scandal denotes a stumbling. But he
that stumbles does not always fall. Therefore scandal,
which is a spiritual fall, can be without sin.

On the contrary, Scandal is something less rightly said or
done. Now anything that lacks rectitude is a sin. There-
fore scandal is always with sin.

/ answer that, As already stated (A. i, ad 4), scandal
is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized,
and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so
occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly passive scandal
is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not
scandalized except in so far as he succumbs to a spiritual
downfall, and that is a sin.

Yet there can be passive scandal, without sin on the part
of the person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as
for instance, when a person is scandalized at another's
good deed. In like manner active scandal is always a sin
in the person who gives scandal, since either what he does
is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it should
always be left undone out of that love for our neighbour
which binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbour's
spiritual welfare; so that if he persist in doing it he acts
against charity.

Yet there can be active scandal without sin on the part
of the person scandalized, as stated above (A. i, ad /\).

Reply Ohj. i. These words, It must needs he that scandals
come, are to be understood to convev, not the absolute,

Q. 43. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 524

but the conditional necessity of scandal; in which sense it
is necessary that whatever God foresees or foretells must
happen, provided it be taken conjointly with such fore-
knowledge, as explained in the First Part (Q. XIV., A. 13,
ady.Q. XXIII., A. 6, ad 2).

Or we may say that the necessity of scandals occurring
is a necessity of end, because they are useful in order that
they . . . who are reproved may he made manifest (i Cor.
xi. 19).

Or scandals must needs occur, seeing the condition of
man who fails to shield himself from sin. Thus a physician
on seeing a man partaking of unsuitable food might say
that such a man must needs injure his health, which is
to be understood on the condition that he does not change
his diet. In like manner it must needs be that scandals
come, so long as men fail to change their evil mode of
living.

Reply Ohj. 2. In that passage scandal denotes any kind
of hindrance: for Peter wished to hinder Our Lord's Passion
out of a sense of dutifulness towards Christ.

Reply Ohj. 3. No man stumbles spiritually, without being
kept back somewhat from advancing in God's way, and that
is at least a venial sin.

Third Article,
whether scandal is a special sin ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that scandal is not a special sin.
For scandal is something said or done less rightly. But this
applies to every kind of sin. Therefore every sin is a
scandal, and consequently, scandal is not a special sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, Every special kind of sin, or every
special kind of injustice, may be found separately from other
kinds, as stated in Ethic, v. But scandal is not to be found
separately from other sins. Therefore it is not a special
kind of sin.

Ohj. 3. Further, Every special sin is constituted by

525 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 3

something which specifics the moral act. But the notion
of scandal consists in its being something done in the
presence of others: and the fact of a sin being committed
openly, though it is an aggravating circumstance, does not
seem to constitute the species of a sin. Therefore scandal is
not a special sin.

On the contrary, A special virtue has a special sin opposed
to it. But scandal is opposed to a special virtue, viz.
charity. For it is written (Rom. xiv. 15): //, because of
thy meat, thy brother he grieved, thou walkest not now according
to charity. Therefore scandal is a special sin.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 2), scandal is twofold,
active and passive. Passive scandal cannot be a special
sin, because through another's word or deed a man may
fall into any kind of sin: and the fact that a man takes
occasion to sin from another's word or deed, does not
constitute a special kind of sin, because it does not imply
a special deformity in opposition to a special virtue.

On the other hand, active scandal may be understood
in two ways, directly and accidentally. The scandal is
accidental when it is beside the agent's intention, as when
a man does not intend, by his inordinate deed or word,
to occasion another's spiritual downfall, but merely to
satisfy his own will. In such a case even active scandal
is not a special sin, because a species is not constituted
by that which is accidental.

Active scandal is direct when a man intends, by his
inordinate word or deed, to draw another into sin, and then
it becomes a special kind of sin on account of the intention
of a special kind of end, because moral actions take their
species from their end, as stated above (I. -II., O. I., A. 3:
0. XVIII., AA. 4, 6). Hence, just as theft and murder are
special kinds of sin, on account of their denoting the inten-
tion of doing a special injury to one's neighbour: so too,
scandal is a special kind of sin, because thereby a man
intends a special harm to his neighbour, and it is directly
opposed to fraternal correction, whereby a man intends the
removal of a special kind of harm.

Q. 43. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 526

Reply Obj. 1. Any sin may be the matter of active scandal,
but it may derive the formal aspect of a special sin from the
end intended, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2. Active scandal can be found separate from
other sins, as when a man scandalizes his neighbour by a
deed which is not a sin in itself, but has an appearance of
evil.

Reply Obj. 3. Scandal does not derive the species of a
special sin from the circumstance in question, but from the
intention of the end, as stated above.

Fourth Article,
whether scandal is a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that scandal is a mortal sin. For
every sin that is contrary to charity is a mortal sin, as
stated above (Q. XXIV., A. 12: Q. XXXV., A. 3). But
scandal is contrary to charity, as stated above (AA. 2, 3).
Therefore scandal is a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, No sin, save mortal sin, deserves the
punishment of eternal damnation. But scandal deserves
the punishment of eternal damnation, according to Matth.
xviii. 6: He that shall scandalize one of these little ones, that
believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone should
be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in
the depth of the sea. For, as Jerome says on this passage,
it is much better to receive a brief punishment for a fault,
than to await everlasting torments. Therefore scandal is
a mortal sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Every sin committed against God is a
mortal sin, because mortal sin alone turns man away from
God. Now scandal is a sin against God, for the Apostle
says (i Cor. viii. 12) : When you wound the weak conscience of
the brethren, "^^ you sin against Christ. Therefore scandal is
always a mortal sin.

* Vulg., — When you sin thus against the brethren and wound their
weak conscience.

527 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 5

On the contrary, It may be a venial sin to lead a person
into venial sin: and yet this would be to give scandal.
Therefore scandal may be a venial sin.

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), scandal denotes a
stumbling whereby a person is disposed to a spiritual
downfall. Consequently passive scandal may sometimes
be a venial sin, when it consists in a stumbling and nothing
more; for instance, when a person is disturbed by a move-
ment of venial sin occasioned by another's inordinate
word or deed: while sometimes it is a mortal sin, when the
stumbling results in a downfall, for instance, when a person
goes so far as to commit a mortal sin through another's
inordinate word or deed.

Active scandal, if it be accidental, may sometimes be
a venial sin; for instance, when, through a slight indiscre-
tion, a person either commits a venial sin, or does something
that is not a sin in itself, but has some appearance of evil.
On the other hand, it is sometimes a mortal sin, either
because a person commits a mortal sin, or because he has
such contempt for his neighbour's spiritual welfare that
he declines, for the sake of procuring it, to forego doing what
he wishes to do. But in the case of active direct scandal,
as when a person intends to lead another into sin, if he
intends to lead him into mortal sin, his own sin will be
mortal; and in like manner if he intends by committing
a mortal sin himself, to lead another into venial sin;
whereas if he intends, by committing a venial sin, to
lead another into venial sin, there will be a venial sin
of scandal.

And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Fifth Article.

whether passive scandal may happen even to

the perfect ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —
Objection i. It seems that passive scandal may happen
even to the perfect For Christ was supremely perfect:

Q. 43. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 528

and yet He said to Peter (Matth. xvi. 23) : Thou art a scandal
to Me. Much more therefore can other perfect men suffer
scandal.

Ohj. 2. Further, Scandal denotes an obstacle which is
put in a person's spiritual way. Now even perfect men
can be hindered in their progress along the spiritual way,
according to i Thessal. ii. 18: We would have come to you,
I Paul indeed, once and again ; hut Satan hath hindered us.
Therefore even perfect men can suffer scandal.

Ohj. 3. Further, Even perfect men are liable to venial
sins, according to i John i. 8: If we say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves. Now passive scandal is not always
a mortal sin, but is sometimes venial, as stated above
(A. 4). Therefore passive scandal may be found in perfect
men.

On the contrary, Jerome, in commenting on Matth. xviii. 6,
He that shall scandalize one of these little ones, says: Observe
that it is the little one that is scandalized, for the elders do not
take scandal.

I answer that. Passive scandal implies that the mind of
the person who takes scandal is unsettled in its adherence
to good. Now no man can be unsettled, who adheres
firmly to something immovable. The elders, i.e. the
perfect, adhere to God alone, Whose goodness is unchange-
able, for though they adhere to their superiors, they do so
only in so far as these adhere to Christ, according to i Cor.
iv. 16: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Where-
fore, however much others may appear to them to conduct
themselves ill in word and deed, they themselves do not
stray from their righteousness, according to Ps. cxxiv. i:
They that trust in the Lord shall he as Mount Sion : he shall
not he moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Therefore
scandal is not found in those who adhere to God perfectly
by love, according to Ps. cxviii. 165 : Much peace have they
that love Thy law, and to them there is no stumhling-hlock
[scandalum).

Reply Ohj. i. As stated above (A. 2, ad 2), in this passage,
scandal is used in a broad sense, to denote any kind of hind-

529 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 6

ranee. Hence Our Lord said to Peter: Thou art a scandal
to Me, because he was endeavouring to weaken Our Lord's
purpose of undergoing His Passion.

Reply Obj. 2. Perfect men may be hindered in the perform-
ance of external actions. But they are not hindered by
the words or deeds of others, from tending to God in the
internal acts of the will, according to Rom. viii. 38, 39:
Neither death, nor life . . . shall he able to separate us from
the love of God.

Reply Obj. 3. Perfect men sometimes fall into venial sins
through the weakness of the flesh; but they are not scandal-
ized (taking scandal in its true sense), by the words or
deeds of others, although there can be an approach to
scandal in them, according to Ps. Ixxii. 2: My feet were
almost moved.

Sixth Article,
whether active scandal can be found in the

PERFECT ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that active scandal can be found
in the perfect. For passion is the effect of action. Now
some are scandalized passively by the words or deeds of
the perfect, according to Matth. xiv. 12: Dost thou know
that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandal-
ized ? Therefore active scandal can be found in the perfect.

Obj. 2. Further, Peter, after receiving the Holy Ghost, was
in the state of the perfect. Yet afterwards he scandalized
the gentiles: for it is written (Gal. ii. 14): When I saw that
they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said
to Cephas, i.e. Peter, before them all : If thou being a Jew,
livest after the manner of the gentiles, and not as the Jews do,
how dost thou compel the gentiles to live as do the Jews ?
Therefore active scandal can be in the perfect.

Obj. 3. Further, Active scandal is sometimes a venial

sin. But venial sins may be in perfect men. Therefore

active scandal may be in perfect men.

On the contrary, Active scandal is more opposed to perfec-
n. ii. I 34

Q. 43. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 530

tion, than passive scandal. But passive scandal cannot
be in the perfect. Much less, therefore, can active scandal
be in them.

/ answer that, Active scandal, properly so called, occurs
when a man says or does a thing which in itself is of a nature
to occasion another's spiritual downfall, and that is only
when what he says or does is inordinate. Now it belongs
to the perfect to direct all their actions according to the
rule of reason, as stated in i Cor. xiv. 40 : Let all things
be done decently and according to order; and they are careful
to do this in those matters chiefly wherein not only would
they do wrong, but would also be to others an occasion
of wrong-doing. And if indeed they fail in this moderation
in such words or deeds as come to the knowledge of others,
this has its origin in human weakness wherein they fall
short of perfection. Yet they do not fall short so far as to
stray far from the order of reason, but only a little and in
some slight matter: and this is not so grave that anyone
can reasonably take therefrom an occasion for committing
sin.

Reply Ohj. i. Passive scandal is always due to some
active scandal; yet this active scandal is not always in
another, but in the very person who is scandalized, because,
to wit, he scandalizes himself.

Reply Ohj. 2. In the opinion of Augustine {Ep. xxviii.,
xL, Ixxii.) and of Paul also, Peter sinned and was to be blamed,
in withdrawing from the gentiles in order to avoid the
scandal of the Jews, because he did this somewhat im-
prudently, so that the gentiles who had been converted
to the faith were scandalized. Nevertheless Peter's action
was not so grave a sin as to give others sufficient ground
for scandal. Hence they were guilty of passive scandal,
while there was no active scandal in Peter.

Reply Ohj. 3. The venial sins of the perfect consist chiefly
in sudden movements, which being hidden cannot give
scandal. If, however, they commit any venial sins even in
their external words or deeds, these are so slight as to be
insufficient in themselves to give scandal.

531 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 7

Seventh Article.

whether spiritual goods should be foregone on
account of scandal ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that spiritual goods ought to be
foregone on account of scandal. For Augustine {Contra
Ep. Parmen. iii.) teaches that punishment for sin should
cease when the peril of schism is feared. But punishment of
sins is a spiritual good, since it is an act of justice. There-
fore a spiritual good is to be foregone on account of scandal.

Obj. 2. Further, The Sacred Doctrine is a most spiritual
thing. Yet one ought to desist therefrom on account of
scandal, according to Matth. vii. 6: Give not that which
is holy, to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine
lest . . . turning upon you, they tear you. Therefore a
spiritual good should be foregone on account of scandal.

Obj. 3. Further, Since fraternal correction is an act of
charity, it is a spiritual good. Yet sometimes it is omitted
out of charity, in order to avoid giving scandal to others,
as Augustine observes {J)e Civ. Dei i.). Therefore a spiritual
good should be foregone on account of scandal.

Obj. 4. Further, Jerome* says that in order to avoid scandal
we should forego whatever it is possible to omit without
prejudice to the threefold truth, i.e. the truth of life, of justice
and of doctrine. Now the observance of the counsels, and the
bestowal of alms may often be omitted without prejudice
to the aforesaid threefold truth, else whoever omitted them
would always be guilty of sin, and yet such things are the
greatest of spiritual works. Therefore spiritual works
should be omitted on account of scandal.

Obj. 5. Further, The avoidance of any sin is a spiritual
good, since any sin brings spiritual harm to the sinner.
Now it seems that one ought sometimes to commit a venial
sin in order to avoid scandalizing one's neighbour, for
instance, when by sinning venially, one would prevent
someone else from committing a mortal sin : because one is

* Hugh de S. Cher. In Matth. xviii. 7: in Luc. xvii. 2.

Q. 43. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 532

bound to hinder the damnation of one's neighbour as much
as one can without prejudice to one's own salvation, which
is not precluded by a venial sin. Therefore one ought to
forego a spiritual good in order to avoid scandal.

On the contrary, Gregory says {Horn. Super Ezech. vii.):
If people are scandalized at the truth, it is better to allow the
birth of scandal, than to abandon the truth. Now spiritual
goods belong, above all others, to the truth. Therefore
spiritual goods are not to be foregone on account of scandal.

/ answer that, Whereas scandal is twofold, active and
passive, the present question does not apply to active
scandal, for since active scandal is something said or done
less rightly, nothing ought to be done that implies active
scandal.

The question does, however, apply to passive scandal,
and accordingly we have to see what ought to be foregone
in order to avoid scandal. Now a distinction must be
made in spiritual goods. For some of them are necessary
for salvation, and cannot be foregone without mortal
sin: and it is evident that no man ought to commit a mortal
sin, in order to prevent another from sinning, because
according to the order of charity, a man ought to love his
own spiritual welfare more than another's. Therefore one
ought not to forego that which is necessary for salvation,
in order to avoid giving scandal.

Again a distinction seems necessary among spiritual
things which are not necessary for salvation: because the
scandal which arises from such things sometimes proceeds
from malice, for instance when a man wishes to hinder
those spiritual goods by stirring up scandal. This is the
scandal of the Pharisees, who were scandalized at Our Lord's
teaching : and Our Lord teaches (Matth. xv. 12) that we ought
to treat suchlike scandal with contempt.

Sometimes scandal proceeds from weakness or ignorance,
and such is the scandal of little ones. In order to avoid this
kind of scandal, spiritual goods ought to be either con-
cealed, or sometimes even deferred (if this can be done
without incurring immediate danger), until the matter being

533 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 7

explained the scandal cease. If, however, the scandal
continue after the matter has been explained, it would
seem to be due to malice, and then it would no longer be
right to forego that spiritual good in order to avoid suchlike
scandal.

Reply Ohj. i. In the infliction of punishment it is not the
punishment itself that is the end in view, but its medicinal
properties in checking sin ; wherefore punishment partakes
of the nature of justice, in so far as it checks sin. But
if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result
in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed,
the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of
justice. It is in this sense that Augustine is speaking,
when, to wit, the excommunication of a few threatens to
bring about the danger of a schism, for in that case it would
be contrary to the truth of justice to pronounce excommuni-
cation.

Reply Ohj. 2. With regard to a man's doctrine two points
must be considered, namely, the truth which is taught,
and the act of teaching. The first of these is necessary for
salvation, to wit, that he whose duty it is to teach should
not teach what is contrary to the truth, and that he should
teach the truth according to the requirements of times
and persons: wherefore on no account ought he to suppress
the truth and teach error in order to avoid any scandal that
might ensue. — But the act itself of teaching is one of the
spiritual almsdeeds, as stated above (Q. XXXII., A. 2),
and so the same is to be said of it as of the other works
of mercy, of which we shall speak further on {ad 4).

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (0. XXXIII., A. i),
fraternal correction aims at the correction of a brother,
wherefore it is to be reckoned among spiritual goods in so
far as this end can be obtained, which is not the case if
the brother be scandalized through being corrected. And
so, if the correction be omitted in order to avoid scandal, no
spiritual good is foregone.

Reply Ohj. 4. The truth of life, of doctrine, and of justice
comprises not only whatever is necessary for salvation,

Q. 43. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' 534

but also whatever is a means of obtaining salvation more
perfectly, according to i Cor. xii. 31: Be zealous for the
better gifts. Wherefore neither the counsels nor even the
works of mercy are to be altogether omitted in order to
avoid scandal; but sometimes they should be concealed or
deferred, on account of the scandal of the little ones, as
stated above. Sometimes, however, the observance of the
counsels and the fulfilment of the works of mercy are
necessary for salvation. This may be seen in the case of
those who have vowed to keep the counsels, and of those
whose duty it is to relieve the wants of others, either in
temporal matters (as by feeding the hungry), or in spiritual
matters (as by instructing the ignorant), whether such
duties arise from their being enjoined as in the case of
prelates, or from the need on the part of the person in want ;
and then the same applies to these things as to others that
are necessary for salvation.

Reply Ohj. 5. Some have said that one ought to commit
a venial sin in order to avoid scandal. But this implies a
contradiction, since if it ought to be done, it is no longer
evil or sinful, for a sin cannot be a matter of choice. It
may happen however that, on account of some circum-
stance, something is not a venial sin, though it would be
were it not for that circumstance: thus an idle word is a
venial sin, when it is uttered uselessly; yet if it be uttered
for a reasonable cause, it is neither idle nor sinful. And
though venial sin does not deprive a man of grace which
is his means of salvation, yet, in so far as it disposes him to
mortal sin, it tends to the loss of salvation.

Eighth Article.

whether temporal goods should be foregone on
account of scandal ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that temporal goods should be
foregone on account of scandal. For we ought to love
our neighbour's spiritual welfare which is hindered by

535 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 8.

scandal, more than any temporal goods whatever. But
we forego what we love less for the sake of what we love
more. Therefore we should forego temporal goods in order
to avoid scandalizing our neighbour.

Ohj. 2. Further, According to Jerome's rule, whatever can
be foregone without prejudice to the threefold truth, should
be omitted in order to avoid scandal. Now temporal goods
can be foregone without prejudice to the threefold truth.
Therefore they should be foregone in order to avoid scandal.
Ohj. 3. Further, No temporal good is more necessary
than food. But we ought to forego taking food on account
of scandal, according to Rom. xiv. 15: Destroy not him with
thy meat for whom Christ died. Much more therefore should
all other temporal goods be foregone on account of scandal.
Ohj. 4. Further, The most fitting way of safeguarding
and recovering temporal goods is the court of justice.
But it is unlawful to have recourse to justice, especially
if scandal ensiies: for it is written (Matth. v. 40): If a man
will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, •
let go thy cloak also unto him ; and (i Cor. vi. 7): Already
indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have
lawsuits one with another. Why do you not rather take
wrong ? why do you not rather suffer yourselves to he de-
frauded ? Therefore it seems that we ought to forego
temporal goods on account of scandal.

Ohj. 5. Further, We ought, seemingly, to forego least
of all those temporal goods which are connected with
spiritual goods : and yet we ought to forego them on account
of scandal. For the Apostle while sowing spiritual things
did not accept a temporal stipend lest he should give any
hindrance to the Gospel of Christ as we read i Cor. ix. 12.
For a like reason the Church does not demand tithes in
certain countries, in order to avoid scandal. Much more,
therefore, ought we to forego other temporal goods in order
to avoid scandal.

On the co7itrary, Blessed Thomas of Canterbury de-
manded the restitution of Church property, notwithstanding
that the king took scandal from his doing so.

Q. 43. Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 536

/ answer that, A distinction must be made in temporal
goods : for either they are ours, or they are consigned to us
to take care of them for someone else; thus the goods of
the Church are consigned to prelates, and the goods of the
community are entrusted to all such persons as have author-
ity over the common weal. In this latter case the care
of such things (as of things held in deposit) devolves of
necessity on those persons to whom they are entrusted,
wherefore, even as other things that are necessary for
salvation, they are not to be foregone on account of scandal.
On the other hand, as regards those temporalities of which
we have the dominion, sometimes, on account of scandal, we
are bound to forego them, and sometimes we are not so
bound, whether we forego them by giving them up, if we
have them in our possession, or by omitting to claim them,
if they are in the possession of others. For if the scandal
arise therefrom through the ignorance or weakness of
others (in which case, as stated above, A. 7, it is scandal of
the little ones) we must either forego such temporalities
altogether, or the scandal must be abated by some other
means, namely, by some kind of admonition. Hence
Augustine says {De Serm. Dom. in Monte i.)' Thou shouldst
give so as to injure neither thyself nor another, as much as
thou canst lend, and if thou refusest what is asked, thou must
yet he just to him, indeed thou wilt give him something better
than he asks, if thou reprove him that asks unjustly. Some-
times, however, scandal arises from malice. This is scandal
of the Pharisees : and we ought not to forego temporal goods
for the sake of those who stir up scandals of this kind,
for this would both be harmful to the common good, since
it would give wicked men an opportunity of plunder, and
would be injurious to the plunderers themselves, who would
remain in sin as long as they were in possession of another's
property. Hence Gregory says {Moral, xxxi.): Sometimes
we ought to suffer those who rob us of our temporalities, while
sometimes we should resist them, as far as equity allows, in
the hope not only that we may safeguard our property, but also
lest those who take what is not theirs may lose themselves.

537 SCANDAL Q. 43. Art. 8

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2. If it were permissible for wicked men to
rob other people of their property, this would tend to the
detriment of the truth of life and justice. Therefore we
are not always bound to forego our temporal goods in order
to avoid scandal.

Reply Obj. 3. The Apostle had no intention of counselling
total abstinence from food on account of scandal, because
our welfare requires that we should take food: but he
intended to counsel abstinence from a particular kind of
food, in order to avoid scandal, according to i Cor. viii. 13:
/ will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.

Reply Obj. 4. According to Augustine {De Semi. Dom.
in Monte i.) this precept of Our Lord is to be understood
of the preparedness of the mind, namely, that man should
be prepared, if it be expedient, to suffer being harmed or
defrauded, rather than go to law. But sometimes it is
not expedient, as stated above [ad 2). The same applies
to the saying of the Apostle.

Reply Obj. 5. The scandal which the Apostle avoided,
arose from an error of the gentiles who were not used to
this payment. Hence it behoved him to forego it for the
time being, so that they might be taught first of all that
such a payment was a duty. For a like reason the Church
refrains from demanding tithes in those countries where
it is not customary to pay them.

QUESTION XLIV.

OF THE PRECEPTS OF CHARITY.
{In Eight Articles.)

We must now consider the Precepts of Charity, under which
head there are eight points of inquiry: (i) Whether pre-
cepts should be given about charity ? (2) Whether there
should be one or two ? (3) Whether two suffice ? (4)
Whether it is fittingly prescribed that we should love God,
with thy whole heart? (5) Whether it is fittingly added:
With thy whole mind, etc. ? (6) Whether it is possible to
fulfil this precept in this life ? (7) Of the precept: Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself : (8) Whether the order
of charity is included in the precept ?

First Article,
whether any precept should be given about

CHARITY ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that no precept should be given
about charity. For charity imposes the mode on all acts
of virtue, since it is the form of the virtues as stated above
(Q. XXIII. , A. 8), while the precepts are about the virtues
themselves. Now, according to the common saying, the
mode is not included in the precept. Therefore no precepts
should be given about charity.

Obj. 2. Further, Charity, which is poured forth in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost (Rom. v. 5), makes us free, since
where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor. iii. 17).
Now the obligation that arises from a precept is opposed

538

539 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44. Art. i

to liberty, since it imposes a necessity. Therefore no pre-
cept should be given about charity.

Ohj. 3. Further, Charity is the foremost among all the
virtues, to which the precepts are directed, as shown above
(I. -II., Q. XC, A. 2: Q. C, A. 9). If, therefore, any pre-
cepts were given about charity, they should have a place
among the chief precepts which are those of the decalogue.
But they have no place there. Therefore no precepts should
be given about charity.

On the contrary, Whatever God requires of us is included
in a precept. Now God requires that man should love Him,
according to Deut. x. 12. Therefore it behoved precepts
to be given about the love of charity, which is the love of
God.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. XVL, A. i: I.-IL,
Q. XCIX., A. i), a precept implies the notion of something
due. Hence a thing is a matter of precept, in so far as it
is something due. Now a thing is due in two ways, for its
own sake, and for the sake of something else. In every
affair, it is the end that is due for its own sake, because it
has the character of a good for its own sake: while that
which is directed to the end is due for the sake of something
else : thus for a physician, it is due for its own sake, that he
should heal, while it is due for the sake of something else
that he should give a medicine in order to heal. Now the
end of the spiritual life is that man be united to God, and
this union is effected by charity, while all things pertaining
to the spiritual life are ordained to this union, as to their
end. Hence the Apostle says (i Tim. i. 5) : The end of the
commandment is charity from a pure heart, and a good con-
science, and an unfeigned faith. For all the virtues, about
whose acts the precepts are given, are directed either to
the freeing of the heart from the whirl of the passions —
such are the virtues that regulate the passions — or at
least to the possession of a good conscience — such are the
virtues that regulate operations — or to the having uf a
right faith — such are those which pertain to the worship
of God : and these three things are required of man that he

Q. 44. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 540

may love God. For an impure heart is withdrawn from
loving God, on account of the passion that inclines it to
earthly things; an evil conscience gives man a horror for
God's justice, through fear of His punishments; and an un-
true faith draws man's affections to an untrue representation
of God, and separates him from the truth of God. Now in
every genus that which is for its own sake takes precedence
of that which is for the sake of another, wherefore the great-
est precept is that of charity, as stated in Matth. xxii. 39.

Reply Ohj. i. As stated above (I. -II., Q. C, A. 10) when
we were treating of the commandments, the mode of love
does not come under those precepts which are about the
other acts of virtue: for instance, this precept. Honour thy
father and thy mother, does not prescribe that this should
be done out of charity. The act of love does, however,
fall under special precepts.

Reply Ohj. 2. The obligation of a precept is not opposed
to liberty, except in one whose mind is averted from that
which is prescribed, as may be seen in those who keep the
precepts through fear alone. But the precept of love
cannot be fulfilled save of one's own will, wherefore it is
not opposed to charity.

Reply Ohj. 3. All the precepts of the decalogue are directed
to the love of God and of our neighbour: and therefore the
precepts of charity had not to be enumerated among the
precepts of the decalogue, since they are included in all of
them.

Second Article.

whether there should have been given two
precepts of charity ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Ohjection i. It seems that there should not have been
given two precepts of charity. For the precepts of the Law
are directed to virtue, as stated above (A. i, ohj, 3). Now
charity is one virtue, as shown above (Q. XXXIII. , A. 5)-
Therefore only one precept of charity should have been
given.

541 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44 Art 2

Obj. 2. Further, As Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.),
chanty loves none hut God in our neighbour. Now we are
sufficiently directed to love God by the precept, Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God. Therefore there was no need to
add the precept about loving our neighbour.

Obj. 3. Further, Different sins are opposed to different
precepts. But it is not a sin to put aside the love of our
neighbour, provided we put not aside the love of God;
indeed, it is written (Luke xiv. 26) : // any man come to
Me, and hate not his father, and mother, . . . he cannot be
My disciple. Therefore the precept of the love of God is
not distinct from the precept of the love of our neighbour.

Obj. 4. Further, The Apostle says (Rom. xiii. 8) : He that
loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the Law. But a law is
not fulfilled unless all its precepts be observed. Therefore
all the precepts are included in the love of our neighbour:
and consequently the one precept of the love of our neigh-
bour suffices. Therefore there should not be two precepts
of charity.

On the contrary, It is written (i John iv. 21): This com-
mandment we have from God, that he who loveth God, love
also his brother.

I answer that, As stated above (I. -II., Q. XCI., A. 3:
Q. XCIV., A. 2) when we were treating of the command-
ments, the precepts are to the Law what propositions are
to speculative sciences, for in these latter, the conclusions
are virtually contained in the first principles. Hence who-
ever knows the principles as to their entire virtual extent
has no need to have the conclusions put separately before
him. Since, however, some who know the principles are
unable to consider all that is virtually contained therein,
it is necessary, for their sake, that scientific conclusions
should be traced to their principles. Now in practical
matters wherein the precepts of the Law direct us, the end
has the character of principle, as stated above (Q. XXI 1 1.,
A. y, ad 2: Q. XXVL, A. i, ad i) : and the love of God is
the end to which the love of our neighbour is directed.
Therefore it behoved us to receive precepts not only of the

Q. 44. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 542

love of God but also of the love of our neighbour, on account
of those who are less intelligent, who do not easily understand
that one of these precepts is included in the other.

Reply Ohj. i. Although charity is one virtue, yet it has
two acts, one of which is directed to the other as to its end.
Now precepts are given about acts of virtue, and so there
had to be several precepts of charity.

Reply Ohj. 2. God is loved in our neighbour, as the end
is loved in that which is directed to the end; and yet there
was need for an explicit precept about both, for the reason
given above.

Reply Ohj. 3. The means derive their goodness from their
relation to the end, and accordingly aversion from the
means derives its malice from the same source and from no
other.

Reply Ohj. 4, Love of our neighbour includes love of God,
as the end is included in the means, and vice versa: and
yet it behoved each precept to be given explicitly, for the
reason given above.

Third Article,
whether two precepts of charity suffice ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Ohjection 1. It seems that two precepts of charity do
not suffice. For precepts are given about acts of virtue.
Now acts are distinguished by their objects. Since, then,
man is bound to love four things out of charity, namely,
God, himself, his neighbour and his own body, as shown
above (Q. XXV., A. 12: Q. XXVI.), it seems that there
ought to be four precepts of charity, so that two are not
sufficient.

Ohj. 2. Further, Love is not the only act of charity, but
also joy, peace and beneficence. But precepts should be
given about the acts of the virtues. Therefore two pre-
cepts of charity do not suffice.

Ohj. 3. Further, Virtue consists not only in doing good
but also in avoiding evil. Now we are led by the positive

543 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44. Art. 3

precepts to do good, and by the negative precepts to avoid
evil. Therefore there ought to have been not only positive,
but also negative precepts about charity; and so two
precepts of charity are not sufficient.

On the contrary. Our Lord said (Matth. xxii. 40) : On these
two commandments dependeth the whole Law and the prophets.
I answer that, Charity, as stated above (Q. XXIII., A. i),
is a kind of friendship. Now friendship is between one
person and another, wherefore Gregory says [Horn, in
Ev. xvii.) : Charity is not possible between less than two :
and it has been explained how one may love oneself out
ef charity (Q. XXV., A. 4). Now since good is the object
of dilection and love, and since good is either an end or a
means, it is fitting that there should be two precepts of
charity, one whereby we are induced to love God as our
end, and another whereby we are led to love our neighbour
for God's sake, as for the sake of our end.

Reply Obj. i. As Augustine says {De Doctr. Christ, i.),
though four things are to be loved out of charity, there was no
need of a precept as regards the second and fourth, i.e. love of
oneself and of one's own body. For however much a man
may stray from the truth, the love of himself and of his own
body always remains in him. And yet the mode of this love
had to be prescribed to man, namely, that he should love
himself and his own body in an ordinate manner, and this
is done by his loving God and his neighbour.

Reply Obj. 2. As stated above (Q. XXVIIL, A. 4:
Q. XXIX., A. 3), the other acts of charity result from the
act of love as effects from their cause. Hence the precepts
of love virtually include the precepts about the other acts.
And yet we find that, for the sake of the laggards, special
precepts were given about each act: — about joy (Phihp.
iv. 4) : Rejoice in the Lord always : about peace (Heb. xii. 14) :
Follow peace with all men : about beneficence (Gal. vi. 10) :
Whilst we have time, let us work good to all men ; and Holy
Writ contains precepts about each of the parts of bene-
ficence, as may be seen by anyone who considers the matter
carefully.

Q. 44. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 544

Reply Ohj. 3. To do good is more than to avoid evil, and
therefore the positive precepts virtually include the nega-
tive precepts. Nevertheless we find explicit precepts
against the vices contrary to charity: for, against hatred
it is written (Levit. xix. 17) : Thou shall not hate thy hr other
in thy heart ; against sloth (Ecclus. vi. 26) : Be not grieved
with her hands ; against envy (Gal. v. 26) ; Let us not be
made desirous of vainglory, provoking one another, envying
one another ; against discord (i Cor. i. 10) : That you all
speak the same thing, and that there he no schisms among you ;
and against scandal (Rom. xiv. 13) : That you put not a
stumhling-hlock or a scandal in your hr other s way.

Fourth Article.

whether it is fittingly commanded that man should
love god with his whole heart ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it is unfittingly commanded
that man should love God with his whole heart. For the
mode of a virtuous act is not a matter of precept, as shown
above (A. 1, ad i: I. -II., Q. C, A. 9). Now the words
with thy whole heart signify the mode of the love of God.
Therefore it is unfittingly commanded that man should
love God with his whole heart.

Ohj. 2. Further, A thing is whole and perfect when it lacks
nothing (Phys. iii.). If therefore it is a matter of precept
that God be loved with the whole heart, whoever does
something not pertaining to the love of God, acts counter
to the precept, and consequently sins mortally. Now a
venial sin does not pertain to the love of God. Therefore
a venial sin is a mortal sin, which is absurd.

Ohj. 3. Further, To love God with one's own heart be-
longs to perfection, since according to the Philosopher (ibid.),
to he whole is to be perfect. But that which belongs to
perfection is not a matter of precept, but a matter of
counsel. Therefore we ought not to be commanded to
love God with our whole heart.

545 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44. Art. 4

On the contrary, It is written (Deut. vi. 5) : Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.

I answer that, Since precepts are given about acts of
virtue, an act is a matter of precept according as it is an
act of virtue. Now it is requisite for an act of virtue that
not only should it fall on its own matter, but also that it
should be endued with its due circumstances, whereby it is
adapted to that matter. But God is to be loved as the
last end, to which all things are to be referred. Therefore
some kind of totality was to be indicated in connection
with the precept of the love of God.

Reply Ohj. i. The commandment that prescribes an act
of virtue does not prescribe the mode which that virtue
derives from another and higher virtue, but it does prescribe
the mode which belongs to its own proper virtue, and this
mode is signified in the words with thy whole heart.

Reply Ohj. 2. To love God with one's whole heart has a
twofold signification. First, actually, so that a man's whole
heart be always actually directed to God: this is the per-
fection of heaven. Secondly, in the sense that a man's
whole heart be habitually directed to God, so that it consent
to nothing contrary to the love of God, and this is the
perfection of the way. Venial sin is not contrary to this
latter perfection, because it does not destroy the habit of
charity, since it does not tend to a contrary object, but
merely hinders the use of charity.

Reply Ohj. 3. That perfection of charity to which the
counsels are directed, is between the two perfections men-
tioned in the preceding reply: and it consists in man re-
nouncing, as much as possible, temporal things, even such
as are lawful, because they occupy the mind and hinder
the actual movement of the heart towards God.

Ji. u. I 35

Q. 44. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 54^

Fifth Article.

whether to the words, ' thou shalt love the lord
thy god with thy whole heart,' it was fit-
ting to add ' and with thy whole soul, and
with thy whole strength ?'

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that it was unfitting to the words,
Thou shall love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, to add,
and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength (Deut.
vi. 5). For heart does not mean here a part of the body,
since to love God is not a bodily action : and therefore heart
is to be taken here in a spiritual sense. Now the heart under-
stood spiritually is either the soul itself or part of the soul.
Therefore it is superfluous to mention both heart and soul.

Obj. 2. Further, A man's strength whether spiritual or
corporal depends on the heart. Therefore after the words,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, it was
unnecessary to add, with all thy strength.

Obj. 3. Further, Matth. xxii. 37 we read: With all thy
mind, which words do not occur here. Therefore it seems
that this precept is unfittingly worded in Deut. vi.

On the contrary stands the authority of Scripture.

/ answer that, This precept is differently worded in various
places: for, as we said in the first objection, in Deut. vi.,
three points are mentioned, with thy whole heart, and with
thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength. In Matth. xxii.
we find two of these mentioned, viz. with thy whole heart
and with thy whole soul, while with thy whole strength is
omitted, but with thy whole mind is added. Yet in Mark xii.
we find all four, viz. with thy whole heart, and with thy
whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole
force which is the same as strength. Moreover, these four
are indicated in Luke x., where in place of strength or force
we read with all thy might. "^

* St. Thomas is explaining the Latin text which reads ex tota
fortitudine tua (Deut.), ex tota virtute tua (Mark) and ex omnibus
viribus tuis (Lnke), although the Greek in all three cases has c^ okrjs
T^v Itrxws <rov, which the Douay renders with thy whole strengths

547 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44. Art. 5

Accordingly these four have to be explained, since the
fact that one of them is omitted here or there is due to one
implying another. We must therefore observe that love
is an act of the will which is here denoted by the heart,
because just as the bodily heart is the principle of all the
movements of the body, so too the will, especially as regards
the intention of the last end which is the object of charity,
is the principle of all the movements of the soul. Now
there are three principles of action that are moved by the
will, namely, the intellect which is signified by the mind,
the lower appetitive power, signified by the soul ; and the
exterior executive power signified by strength, force or
might. Accordingly we are commanded to direct our whole
intention to God, and this is signified by the words with thy
whole heart; to submit our intellect to God, and this is
expressed in the words with thy whole mind; to regulate
our appetite according to God, in the words with thy whole
soul ; and to obey God in our external actions, and this is
to love God with our whole strength, force or might.

Chrysostom,* on the other hand, takes heart and soul in
the contrary sense; and Augustine [De Doctr. Christ, i.)
refers heart to the thought, soul to the manner of life, and
mind to the intellect. Again some explain with thy whole
heart as denoting the intellect, with thy whole soul as signify-
ing the will, with thy mind as pointing to the memory.
And again, according to Gregory of Nyssa [De Horn.
Opif viii.), heart signifies the vegetative soul, soul the sensi-
tive, and mind the intellective soul, because our nourish-
ment, sensation, and understanding ought all to be referred
by us to God.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

* The quotation is from an anonymous author's unfinished work
{Opus imperf. Horn. xHi. in Matth.) which is included in Chrysostom's
works.

Q. 44. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 548

Sixth Article.

whether it is possible in this life to fulfil this
precept of the love of god?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that in this life it is possible to fulfil
this precept of the love of God. For according to Jerome
(Pelagius, Exposit. Cath. Fid.) accursed is he who says that
God has commanded anything impossible. But God gave
this commandment, as is clear from Deut. vi. 5. Therefore
it is possible to fulfil this precept in this life.

Obj. 2. Further, Whoever does not fulfil a precept sins
mortally, since according to Ambrose [De Parad. viii.) sin
is nothing else than a transgression of the Divine Law, and
disobedience of the heavenly commandments. If therefore
this precept cannot be fulfilled by wayfarers, it follows that
in this life no man can be without mortal sin, and this is
against the saying of the Apostle (i Cor. i. 8) : {Who also)
will confirm you unto the end without crime, and (i Tim. iii. 10) :
Let them minister, having no crime.

Obj. 3. Further, Precepts are given in order to direct
man in the way of salvation, according to Ps. xviii. 9 : The
commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes.
Now it is useless to direct anyone to what is impossible.
Therefore it is not impossible to fulfil this precept in this life.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Perfect. Justit.) : In
the fulness of heavenly charity this precept will be fulfilled :
Thou shall love the Lord thy God, etc. For as long as any
carnal concupiscence remains, that can be restrained by con-
tinence, man cannot love God with all his heart.

I answer that, A precept can be fulfilled in two ways ; per-
fectly, and imperfectly. A precept is fulfilled perfectly,
when the end intended by the author of the precept is
reached ; yet it is fulfilled, imperfectly however, when although
the end intended by its author is not reached, nevertheless
the order to that end is not departed from. Thus if the
commander of an army order his soldiers to fight, his com-

549 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44. Art. 7

mand will be perfectly obeyed by those who fight and
conquer the foe, which is the commander's intention; yet
it is fulfilled, albeit imperfectly, by those who fight with-
out gaining the victory, provided they do nothing contrary
to military discipHne. Now God intends by this precept
that man should be entirely united to Him, and this will
be realized in heaven, when God will be all in all, according
to I Cor. XV. 28. Hence this precept will be observed fully
and perfectly in heaven; yet it is fulfilled, though imper-
fectly, on the way. Nevertheless on the way one man will
fulfil it more perfectly than another, and so much the more,
as he approaches by some kind of likeness to the perfection
of heaven.

Reply Ohj. i. This argument proves that the precept can
be fulfilled after a fashion on the way, but not perfectly.

Reply Ohj. 2. Even as the soldier who fights legitimately
without conquering is not blamed nor deserves to be
punished for this, so too he that does not fulfil this precept
on the way, but does nothing against the love of God, does
not sin mortally.

Reply Ohj. 3. As Augustine says {De Perfect. Justit. viii.),
why should not this perfection he prescrihed to man, although
no man attains it in this life ? For one cannot run straight
unless one knows whither to run. And how would one know
this if no precept pointed it out.

Seventh Article.

WHETHER the PRECEPT OF THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOUR
IS FITTINGLY EXPRESSED ?

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the precept of the love of our
neighbour is unfittingly expressed. For the love of charity
extends to all men, even to our enemies, as may be seen in
Matth. V. 44. But the word neighbour denotes a kind of
nighness which does not seem to exist towards all men.
Therefore it seems that this precept is unfittingly expressed.

Ohj. 2. Further, According to the Philosopher (Ethic, ix.)

Q. 44. Art. 7 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 55o

the origin of our friendly relations with others lies in our
relation to ourselves, whence it seems to follow that love of
self is the origin of one's love for one's neighbour. Now
the principle is greater than that which results from it.
Therefore man ought not to love his neighbour as himself.

Ohj. 3. Further, Man loves himself, but not his neigh-
bour, naturally. Therefore it is unfitting that he should
be commanded to love his neighbour as himself.

On the contrary, It is written (Matth. xxii. 39) : The second
commandment is like to this : Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.

I answer that, This precept is fittingly expressed, for it
indicates both the reason for loving and the mode of love.

The reason for loving is indicated in the word neighbour,
because the reason why we ought to love others out of
charity is because they are nigh to us, both as to the natural
image of God, and as to the capacity for glory. Nor does
it matter whether we say neighbour, or brother according
to I John iv. 21, or friend, according to Levit. xix. 18,
because all these words express the same affinity.

The mode of love is indicated in the words as thyself.
This does not mean that a man must love his neighbour
equally as himself, but in like manner as himself, and this
in three ways. First, as regards the end, namely, that he
should love his neighbour for God's sake, even as he loves
himself for God's sake, so that his love for his neighbour is
a holy love. Secondly, as regards the rule of love, namely,
that a man should not give way to his neighbour in evil,
but only in good things, even as he ought to gratify his
will in good things alone, so that his love for his neighbour
may be a righteous love. Thirdly, as regards the reason
for loving, namely, that a man should love his neighbour,
not for his own profit, or pleasure, but in the sense of wish-
ing his neighbour well, even as he wishes himself well, so
that his love for his neighbour may be a true love: since
when a man loves his neighbour for his own profit or pleasure,
he does not love his neighbour truly, but loves himself.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

551 PRECEPTS OF CHARITY Q. 44. Art. 8

Eighth Article,
whether the order of charity is included in the

PRECEPT ?

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the order of charity is not
included in the precept. For whoever transgresses a precept
does a wrong. But if man loves some one as much as he
ought, and loves any other man more, he wrongs no man.
Therefore he does not transgress the precept. Therefore
the order of charity is not included in the precept.

Obj. 2. Further, Whatever is a matter of precept is suffi-
ciently delivered to us in Holy Writ. Now the order of
charity which was given above (Q. XXVI.) is nowhere
indicated in Holy Writ. Therefore it is not included in
the precept.

Obj. 3. Further, Order implies some kind of distinction.
But the love of our neighbour is prescribed without any
distinction, in the words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. Therefore the order of charity is not included in
the precept.

On the contrary, Whatever God works in us by His grace.
He teaches us first of all by His Law, according to Jerem.
xxxi. 33: / will give My Law in their heart. ''^ Now God
causes in us the order of charity, according to Cant. ii. 4:
He set in order charity in me. Therefore the order of charity
comes under the precept of the Law.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 4, ad i), the mode
which is essential to an act of virtue comes under the precept
which prescribes that virtuous act. Now the order of
charity is essential to the virtue, since it is based on the
proportion of love to the thing beloved, as shown above
(Q. XXV., A. 12: Q. XXVI., AA. i, 2). It is therefore
evident that the order of charity must come under the
precept.

Reply Obj. i. A man gratifies mcMo the person he Ionts

* Viilg., — in their bowels, and I will ivrite it in their heart.

Q. 44- Art. 8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 552

more, so that if he loved less one whom he ought to love
more, he would wish to gratify more one whom he ought
to gratify less, and so he would do an injustice to the one
he ought to love more.

Reply Ohj. 2. The order of those four things we have to
love out of charity is expressed in Holy Writ. For when we
are commanded to love God with our whole heart, we are given
to understand that we must love Him above all things. When
we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves, the
love of self is set before love of our neighbour. In like
manner where we are commanded (i John iii. 16) to lay
down our souls, i.e. the life of our bodies, for the brethren, we
are given to understand that a man ought to love his neigh-
bour more than his own body ; and again when we are com-
manded (Gal. vi. 10) to work good . . . especially to those
who are of the household of the faith, and when a man is
blamed (i Tim. v. 8) if he have not care of his own, and
especially of those of his house, it means that we ought to
love most those of our neighbours who are more virtuous
or more closely united to us.

Reply Ohj. 3. It follows from the very words, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour that those who are nearer to us are to be
loved more.

QUESTION XLV.

OF THE GIFT OF WISDOM.
{In Six Articles.)

We must now consider the gift of wisdom which corresponds
to charity ; and firstly, wisdom itself, secondly, the opposite
vice. Under the first head there are six points of inquiry'
(i) Whether wisdom should be reckoned among the gifts
of the Holy Ghost ? (2) What is its subject ? (3) Whether
wisdom is only speculative or also practical ? (4) Whether
the wisdom that is a gift is compatible with mortal sin ?

(5) Whether it is in all those who have sanctifying grace ?

(6) Which beatitude corresponds to it ?

First Article.

whether wisdom should be reckoned among the
gifts of the holy ghost ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection 1. It seems that wisdom ought not to be reckoned
among the gifts of the Holy Ghost. For the gifts are more
perfect than the virtues, as stated above (I. -II., Q. LXVIIL,
A. 8). Now virtue is directed to the good alone, wherefore
Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii.) that no man makes bad use
of the virtues. Much more therefore are the gifts of the Holy
Ghost directed to the good alone. But wisdom is directed
to evil also, for it is written (James iii. 15) that a certain
wisdom is earthly, sensual, devilish. Therefore wisdom
should not be reckoned among the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2. Further, According to Augustine (De Trin. xii.)
wisdom is the knowledge of Divine things. Now that know-

553

Q. 45. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 554

ledge of Divine things which man can acquire by his natural
endowments, belongs to the wisdom which is an intellectual
virtue, while the supernatural knowledge of Divine things
belongs to faith which is a theological virtue, as explained
above (Q. IV. A. 5: I.-II. Q. LXIL, A. 3). Therefore
wisdom should be called a virtue rather than a gift.

Obj. 3. Further, It is written (Job. xxviii. 28): Behold
the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from
evil, that is understanding. And in this passage accord-
ing to the rendering of the Septuagint which Augustine
follows {De Trin. xii., xiv.) we read: Behold piety, that is
wisdom. Now both fear and piety are gifts of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore wisdom should not be reckoned among
the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as though it were distinct from
the others.

On the contrary. It is written (Isa. xi. 2) : The Spirit of the
Lord shall rest upon Him ; the spirit of wisdom and of under-
standing.

I answer that, According to the Philosopher {Met. i), it
belongs to wisdom to consider the highest cause. By means of
that cause we are able to form a most certain judgment about
other casues, and according thereto all things should be set in
order. Now the highest cause may be understood in two ways,
either simply or in some particular genus. Accordingly he
that knows the highest cause in any particular genus, and
by its means is able to judge and set in order all the things
that belong to that genus, is said to be wise in that genus,
for instance in medicine or architecture, according to
I Cor. iii. 10: As a wise architect, I have laid a foundation.
On the other hand, he who knows the cause that is simply
the highest, which is God, is said to be wise simply, because
he is able to judge and set in order all things according to
Divine rules.

Now man obtains this judgment through the Holy Ghost,
according to i Cor. ii. 15: The spiritual man judgeth al
things, because as stated in the same chapter [verse 10),
the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God.

555 "THE GIFT OF WISDOM Q. 45- Art. i

Wherefore it is evident that wisdom is a gift of the Holy
Ghost.

Reply Ohj. i. A thing is said to be good in two senses:
first in the sense that it is truly good and simply perfect,
secondly, by a kind of likeness, being perfect in wickedness;
thus we speak of a good or a perfect thief, as the Philosopher
observes [Met. v.). And just as with regard to those things
which are truly good, we find a highest cause, namely
the sovereign good which is the last end, by knowing which,
man is said to be truly wise, so too in evil things something
is to be found to which all others are to be referred as to a
last end, by knowing which, man is said to be wise unto
evil doing, according to Jerem. iv. 22: They arc wise to do
evils, but to do good they have no knowledge. Now whoever
turns away from his due end, must needs fix on some undue
end, since every agent acts for an end. Wherefore, if he
fixes his end in external earthly things, his wisdom is called
earthly, if in the goods of the body, it is called sensual wisdom,
if in some excellence, it is called devilish wisdom, because
it imitates the devil's pride, of which it is written (Job
xli. 25) : He is king over all the children of pride.

Reply Ohj. 2. The wisdom which is called a gift of the
Holy Ghost, differs from that which is an acquired intel-
lectual virtue, for the latter is attained by human effort,
whereas the latter is descending from above (James iii. 15.).
In like manner it differs from faith, since faith assents to
the Divine truth in itself, whereas it belongs to the gift of
wisdom to judge according to the Divine truth. Hence
the gift of wisdom presupposes faith, because a man judges
well what he knows [Ethic, i.).

Reply Ohj. 3. Just as piety which pertains to the worship
of God is a manifestation of faith, in so far as we make pro-
fession of faith by worshipping God, so too, piety manifests
wisdom. For this reason piety is stated to be wisdom, and
so is fear, for the same reason, because if a man fear and
worship (rod, this shows that he has a right judgment about
Divine things.

Q. 45. Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 556

Second Article,
whether wisdom is in the intellect as its subject.

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that wisdom is not in the intellect
as its subject. For Augustine says [Ep. cxx.) that wisdom
is the charity of God. Now charity is in the will as its sub-
ject, and not in the intellect, as stated above (Q. XXIV.,
A. i). Therefore wisdom is not in the intellect as its
subject.

Ohj. 2. Further, It is written (Ecclus. vi. 23) : The wisdom
of doctrine is according to her name, for wisdom (sapientia)
may be described as sweet-tasting science (sapida scientia),
and this would seem to regard the appetite, to which it
belongs to taste spiritual pleasure or sweetness. Therefore
wisdom is in the appetite rather than in the intellect.

Ohj. 3. Further, The intellective power is sufficiently
perfected by the gift of understanding. Now it is super-
fluous to require two things where one suffices for the pur-
pose. Therefore wisdom is not in the intellect.

On the contrary, Gregory says {Moral, xxvi.) that wisdom
is contrary to folly. But folly is in the intellect. Therefore
wisdom is also.

I answer that, As stated above (A. i), wisdom denotes a
certain rectitude of judgment according to the Eternal
Law. Now rectitude of judgment is twofold: first, on
account of perfect use of reason, secondly, on account of a
certain connaturahty with the matter about which one has
to judge. Thus, about matters of chastity, a man after
inquiring with his reason forms a right judgment, if he has
learnt the science of morals, while he who has the habit of
chastity judges of such matters by a kind of connaturality.

Accordingly it belongs to the wisdom that is an intel-
lectual virtue to pronounce right judgment about Divine
things after reason has made its inquiry, but it belongs to
wisdom as a gift of the Holy Ghost to judge aright about
them on account of connaturality with them: thus Diony-

557 THE GIFT OF WISDOM Q. 45. Art. 3

sius says (Dio. Nom. ii.) that Hierotheus is perfect in Divine
things, for he not only learns, but is patient of, Divine things^

Now this sympathy or connaturality for Divine things is
the result of charity, which unites us to God, according to
I Cor. vi. 17 : He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. Con-
sequently wisdom which is a gift, has its cause in the will,
which cause is charity, but it has its essence in the intellect,
whose act is to judge aright, as stated above (I. -II., Q. XIV.,

A.I).

Reply Ohj. i. Augustine is speaking of wisdom as to its
cause, whence also wisdom (sapientia) takes its name, in
so far as it denotes a certain sweetness {sapor em). Hence
the Reply to the Second Objection is evident, that is if this
be the true meaning of the text quoted. For, apparently
this is not the case, because such an exposition of the text
would only fit the Latin word for wisdom, whereas it does
not apply to the Greek, and perhaps not in other languages.
Hence it would seem that in the text quoted wisdom stands
for the renown of doctrine, for which it is praised by all.

Reply Obj. 3. The intellect exercises a twofold act, per-
ception and judgment. The gift of understanding regards
the former; the gift of wisdom regards the latter according
to the Divine ideas, the gift of knowledge, according to
human ideas.

Third Article.

whether wisdom is merely speculative, or
practical also ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that wisdom is not practical but
merely speculative. For the gift of wisdom is more excellent
than the wisdom which is an intellectual virtue. But
wisdom, as an intellectual virtue, is merely speculative.
Much more therefore is wisdom, as a gift, speculative and
not practical.

Obj. 2. Further, The practical intellect is about matters
of operation which are contingent, But wisdom is about

Q. 45. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 558

Divine things which are eternal and necessary.. There-
fore wisdom cannot be practical.

Ohj. 3. Further, Gregory says {Moral, vi.) that in con-
templation we seek the Beginning which is God, but in action
we labour under a mighty bundle of wants. Now wisdom
regards the vision of Divine things, in which there is no
toiling under a load, since according to Wis. viii. 16, her
conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any tedious-
ness. Therefore wisdom is merely contemplative, and not
practical or active.

On the contrary, It is written (Coloss. iv. 5) : Walk with
wisdom towards them that are without. Now this pertains
to action. Therefore wisdom is not merely speculative,
but also practical.

I answer that. As Augustine says {De Trin. xii.), the
higher part of the reason is the province of wisdom, while
the lower part is the domain of knowledge. Now the higher
reason according to the same authority (ibid.) is intent on
the consideration and consultation of the heavenly i.e. Divine
types]* it considers them, in so far as it contemplates Divine
things in themselves, and it consults them, in so far as it
judges of human acts by Divine things, and directs human
acts according to Divine rules.

Accordingly wisdom as a gift, is not merely speculative
but also practical.

Reply Obj. i. The higher a virtue is, the greater the num-
ber of things to which it extends, as stated in De Causis.
Wherefore from the very fact that wisdom as a gift is more
excellent than wisdom as an intellectual virtue, since it
attains to God more intimately by a kind of union of the
soul with Him, it is able to direct us not only in contem-
plation but also in action.

Reply Obj. 2. Divine things are indeed necessary and
eternal in themselves, yet they are the rules of the con-
tingent things which are the subject-matter of human actions.

Reply Obj. 3. A thing is considered in itself before being
compared with something else. Wherefore to wisdom

* Cf. P.I., Q. LXXIX.i A. 9: I.-II., Q. LXXIV., A. 7.

559 THE GIFT OF WISDOM Q. 45. Art. 4

belongs first of all contemplation which is the vision of the
Beginning, and afterwards the direction of human act
according to the Divine rules. Nor from the direction of
wisdom does there result any bitterness or toil in human
acts, on the contrary the result of wisdom is to make the
bitter sweet, and labour a rest.

Fourth Article.

whether wisdom can be without grace, and with

mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that wisdom can be without grace
and with mortal sin. For saints glory chiefly in such things
as are incompatible with mortal sin, according to 2 Cor. i.12 :
Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience. Now one
ought not to glory in one's wisdom, according to Jerem. ix.
23: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom. Therefore
wisdom can be without grace and with mortal sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, wisdom denotes knowledge of Divine
things, as stated above (A. i). Now one in mortal sin may
have knowledge of the Divine truth, according to Rom. i. 18 :
[Those men that) detain the truth of God in injustice. There-
fore wisdom is compatible with mortal sin.

Ohj. 3. Further, Augustine says [De Trin. xv.) while speak-
ing of charity: Nothing surpasses this gift of God, it is this
alone that divides the children of the eternal kingdom from
the children of eternal perdition. But wisdom is distinct
from charity. Therefore it does not divide the children
of the kingdom from the children of perdition. Therefore
it is compatible with mortal sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Wis. i. 4) : Wisdom will not
enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.

I answer that. The wisdom which is a gift of the Holy
Ghost, as stated above (A. i), enables us to judge aright of
Divine things, or of other things according to Divine rules,
by reason of a certain connaturalness or union with Divine

Q. 45. Art. 5 THE * SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 560

things, which is the effect of charity, as stated above (A. 2 :
Q. XXIII. , A. 5). Hence the wisdom of which we are
speaking presupposes charity. Now charity is incompatible
with mortal sin, as shown above (Q. XXIV., A. 12). There-
fore it follows that the wisdom of which we are speaking
cannot be together with mortal sin.

Reply Ohj. i. These words are to be understood as
referring to worldly wisdom, or to wisdom in Divine things
acquired through human reasons. In such wisdom the
saints do not glory, according to Prov. xxx. 2 : The wisdom
of men is not with Me : But they do glory in Divine wisdom
according to i Cor. i. 30: {Who) of God is made unto us
wisdom.

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument considers, not the wisdom
of which we speak but that which is acquired by the study
and research of reason, and is compatible with mortal sin.

Reply Ohj. 3. Although wisdom is distinct from charity, it
presupposes it, and for that very reason divides the children
of perdition from the children of the kingdom.

Fifth Article,
whether wisdom is in all who have grace ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that wisdom is not in all who have
grace. For it is more to have wisdom than to hear wisdom.
Now it is only for the perfect to hear wisdom, according
to I Cor. ii. 6: We speak wisdom among the perfect. Since
then not all who have grace are perfect, it seems that much
less all who have grace have wisdom.

Ohj. 2. Further, The wise man sets things in order, as the
Philosopher states {Met. i.) : and it is written (James iii. 17)
that the wise man judges without dissimulation.^ Now it
is not for all that have grace, to judge, or put others in order,
but only for those in authority. Therefore wisdom is not
in all that have grace.

* Vulg., — The wisdom that is from above , , . is . . , without
judging, without dissimulation.

56i THE GIFT OF WISDOM Q. 45. Art. 5

Obj. 3. Further, Wisdom is a remedy against folly, as
Gregory says {Moral, ii.). Now many that have grace are
naturally foolish, for instance madmen who are baptized
or those who without being guilty of mortal sin have
become insane. Therefore wisdom is not in all that have
grace.

On the contrary, Whoever is without mortal sin, is beloved
of God; since he has charity, whereby he loves God, and
God loves them that love Him (Prov. viii. 17). Now it is
written (Wis. vii. 28) that God loveth none hut him that
dwelleth with wisdom. Therefore wisdom is in all those who
have charity and are without mortal sin.

/ answer that, The wisdom of which we are speaking, as
stated above (A. 4), denotes a certain rectitude of judg-
ment in the contemplation and consultation of Divine things,
and as to both of these men obtain various degrees of
wisdom through union with Divine things. For the measure
of right judgment attained by some, whether in the contem-
plation of Divine things or in directing human affairs accord-
ing to Divine rules, is no more than suffices for their salva-
tion. This measure is wanting to none who is without
mortal sin through having sanctifying grace, since if nature
does not fail in necessaries, much less does grace fail:
wherefore it is written (i John ii. 27) : {His) unction teacheth
you of all things.

Some, however, receive a higher degree of the gift of
wisdom, both as to the contemplation of Divine things
(by both knowing more exalted mysteries and being able
to impart this knowledge to others) and as to the direction
of human affairs according to Divine rules (by being able
to direct not only themselves but also others according to
those rules). This degree of wisdom is not common to all
that have sanctifying grace, but belongs rather to the
gratuitous graces, which the Holy Ghost dispenses as He
will, according to i Cor. xii. 8: To one indeed by the Spirit
is given the word of wisdom, etc.

Reply Obj. i. The Apostle speaks there of wisdom, as

extending to the hidden mysteries- of Divine things, as
It. ii, 1 j6

Q. 45. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 562

indeed he says himself {ibid. 7) ; We speak the wisdom of
God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden.

Reply Ohj. 2. Although it belongs to those alone who are
in authority to direct and judge other men, yet every man is
competent to direct and judge his own actions, as Dionysius
declares [Ep. ad Demophil.).

Reply Ohj. 3. Baptized idiots, like little children, have the
habit of wisdom, which is a gift of the Holy Ghost, but they
have not the act, on account of the bodily impediment
which hinders the use of reason in them.

Sixth Article.

whether the seventh beatitude corresponds to
the gift of wisdom ?

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the seventh beatitude does not
correspond to the gift of wisdom. For the seventh beati-
tude is: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
the children of God. Now both these things belong to charity :
since of peace it is written (Ps. cxviii. 165) : Much peace have
they that love Thy law, and, as the Apostle says (Rom. v. 5),
the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost Who is given to us, and Who is the Spirit of adoption
of sons, whereby we cry : Abba [Father) [ibid. 8, 15). There-
fore the seventh beatitude ought to be ascribed to charity
rather than to wisdom.

Obj. 2. Further, A thing is declared by its proximate
effect rather than by its remote effect. Now the proximate
effect of wisdom seems to be charity, according to Wis. vii. 27 :
Through nations she conveyeth herself into holy souls ; she
maheth the friends of God and prophets : whereas peace and
the adoption of sons seem to be remote effects, since they
result from charity, as stated above (Q. XXIX., A. 3),
Therefore the beatitude corresponding to wisdom should
be determined in respect of the love of charity rather than
in respect of peace.

Obj. 3. Further, It is written (James iii. 17) : The wisdom^

563 THE GIFT OF WISDOM Q. 45. Art. 6

that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest,
easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and
good fruits, judging without dissimulation.*^ Therefore the
beatitude corresponding to wisdom should not refer to peace
rather than to the other effects of heavenly wisdom.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Serm. Dom. in monte, i.)
that wisdom is becoming to peacemakers, in whom there is no
movement of rebellion, but only obedience to reason,

I answer that. The seventh beatitude is fittingly ascribed
to the gift of wisdom, both as to the merit and as to the
reward. The merit is denoted in the words, Blessed are the
peacemakers. Now a peacemaker is one who makes peace,
either in himself, or in others: and in both cases this is the
result of setting in due order those things in which peace
is established, for peace is the tranquillity of order, according
to Augustine {De Civ. Dei. xix.). Now it belongs to wisdom
to set things in order, as the Philosopher declares [Met. i) :
wherefore peaceableness is fittingly ascribed to wisdom.
The reward is expressed in the words, they shall be called
the children of God. Now men are called the children of
God in so far as they participate in the likeness of the only
begotten and natural Son of God, according to Rom. viii. 29,
Whom He foreknew . . . to be made conformable to the
image of His Son, Who is Wisdom Begotten. Hence by
participating in the gift of wisdom, man attains to the
sonship of God.

Reply Obj. i. It belongs to charity to be at peace, but it
belongs to wisdom to make peace by setting things in order.
Likewise the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of adoption in
so far as we receive from Him the likeness of the natural
Son, Who is the Begotten Wisdom.

Reply Obj. 2. These words refer to the Uncreated Wisdom,
which in the first place unites itself to us by the gift of
charity, and consequently reveals to us the mysteries the
knowledge of which is infused wisdom. Hence, the infused
wisdom which is a gift, is not the cause but the effect of
charity.

* Vulg., — without judging, without dissimulation.

Q. 45. Art. 6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 564

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (A. 3) it belongs to wisdom,
as a gift, not only to contemplate Divine things, but also
to regulate human acts. Now the first thing to be effected
in this direction of human acts is the removal of evils opposed
to wisdom: wherefore fear is said to be the beginning of
wisdom, because it makes us shun evil, while the last thing
is like an end, whereby all things are reduced to their right
order; and it is this that constitutes peace. Hence James
said with reason that the wisdom that is from above (and this
is the gift of the Holy Ghost) first indeed is chaste, because
it avoids the corruption of sin, and then peaceable, wherein
lies the ultimate effect of wisdom, for which reason peace
is numbered among the beatitudes. As to the things that
follow, they declare in becoming order the means whereby
wisdom leads to peace. For when a man, by chastity, avoids
the corruption of sin, the first thing he has to do is, as far
as he can, to be moderate in all things, and in this respect
wisdom is said to be modest. Secondly, in those matters in
which he is not sufficient by himself, he should be guided by
the advice of others, and as to this we are told further that
wisdom is easy to be persuaded. These two are conditions
required that man may be at peace with himself. But in
order that man may be at peace with others it is furthermore
required, first that he should not be opposed to their good;
this is what is meant by consenting to the good. Secondly,
that he should bring to his neighbour's deficiencies, sym-
pathy in his heart, and succour in his actions, and this is
denoted by the words full of mercy and good fruits. Thirdly,
he should strive in all charity to correct the sins of others,
and this is indicated by the words judging without dissimu-
lation,* lest he should purpose to sate his hatred under cover
of correction.

* See note on p. 563.

QUESTION XLVI.

OF I'OLLY WHICH IS OPPOSED TO WISDOM
{In Three Articles.)

We must now consider folly which is opposed to wisdom;
and under this head there are three points of inquiry:
(i) Whether folly is contrary to wisdom ? (2) Whether
folly is a sin ? (3) To which capital sin is it reducible ?'

First Article,
whether folly is contrary to wisdom ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that folly is not contrary to wisdom.
For seemingly unwisdom is directly opposed to wisdom.
But folly does not seem to be the same as unwisdom, for
the latter is apparently about Divine things alone, whereas
folly is about both Divine and human things. Therefore
folly is not contrary to wisdom.

Ohj. 2. Further, One contrary is not the way to arrive
at the other. But folly is the way to arrive at wisdom, for
it is written (i Cor. iii. 18) : // any man among you seem to
he wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be
wise. Therefore folly is not opposed to wisdom.

Ohj, 3. Further, One contrary is not the cause of the
other. But wisdom is the cause of folly; for it is written
(Jerem. x. 14) : Every man is become a fool for knowledge, and
wisdom is a kind of knowledge. Moreover it is written
(Isa. xlvii. 10) : Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, this hath
deceived thee. Now it belongs to folly to be deceived. There-
fore folly is not contrary to wisdom.

565

Q. 46. Art. i THE *' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 566

Obj. 4. Further, Isidore ssys (Etym. x.) that a fool is one
whom shame does not incite to sorrow, and who is unconcerned
when he is injured. But this pertains to spiritual wisdom,
according to Gregory [Moral, x.). Therefore folly is not
opposed to wisdom.

On the contrary, Gregory says [Moral, ii.) that the gift of
wisdom is given as a remedy against folly.

I answer that, Stultitia [Folly) seems to take its name
from stupor ; wherefore Isidore says [loc. cit.) : A fool is one
who through dulness [stuporem) remains unmoved. And folly
differs from fatuity, according to the same authority [ibid.),
in that folly implies apathy in the heart and dulness in the
senses, while fatuity denotes entire privation of the spiritual
sense Therefore folly is fittingly opposed to wisdom.

For sapiens [wise) as Isidore says [ibid.) is so named
from sapor [savour), because just as the taste is quick to
distinguish between savours of meats, so is a wise man in
discerning things and causes. Wherefore it is manifest that
folly is opposed to wisdom as its contrary, while fatuity is
opposed to it is a pure negation: since the fatuous man
lacks the sense of judgment, while the fool has the sense,
though dulled, whereas the wise man has the sense acute
and penetrating.

Reply Obj. i. According to Isidore [ibid.) unwisdom is
contrary to wisdom because it lacks the savour of discretion
and sense ; so that unwisdom is seemingly the same as folly.
Yet a man would appear to be a fool chiefly through some
deficiency in the verdict of that judgment, which is according
to the highest cause, for if a man fails in judgment about
some trivial matter, he is not for that reason called a
fool.

Reply Obj. 2. Just as there is an evil wisdom, as stated
above (Q. XLV., A. 1, adi), called worldly wisdom, because it
takes for the highest cause and last end some worldly good,
so too there is a good folly opposed to this evil wisdom,
whereby man despises worldly things : and it is of this folly
that the Apostle speaks.

Reply Obj. 3. It is the wisdom of the world that deceives

567 FOLLY Q. 46. Art. 2

and makes us foolish in God's sight, as is evident from the
Apostle's words (i Cor. iii. 19).

Reply Ohj. 4. To be unconcerned when one is injured is
sometimes due to the fact that one has no taste for worldly
things, but only for heavenly things. Hence this belongs
not to worldly but to Divine wisdom, as Gregory declares
{ibid.). Sometimes however it is the result of a man's being
simply stupid about everything, as may be seen in idiots,
who do not discern what is injurious to them, and this
belongs to folly simply.

Second Article,
whether folly is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that folly is not a sin. For no sin
arises in us from nature. But some are fools naturally.
Therefore folly is not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Every sin is voluntary, according to
Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv.). But folly is not voluntary.
Therefore it is not a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Every sin is contrary to a Divine precept.
But folly is not contrary to any precept. Therefore folly
is not a sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Prov. i. 32) : The prosperity
of fools shall destroy them. But no man is destroyed save
for sin. Therefore folly is a sin.

I answer that, Folly, as stated above (A. i), denotes dulness
of sense in judging, and chiefly as regards the highest cause,
which is the last end and the sovereign good. Now a man
may in this respect contract dulness in judgment in two
ways. First, from a natural indisposition, as in the case of
idiots, and suchlike folly is no sin. Secondly, by plunging his
sense into earthly things, whereby his sense is rendered in-
capable of perceiving Divine things, according to i Cor. ii.14.
The sensual man perceivcth not these things that are of the
Spirit of God, even as sweet things have no savour for a
man whose taste is infected with an evil humour: and such-
like folly is a sin.

Q. 46. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 568

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Ohj. 2. Though no man wishes to be a fool, yet he
wishes those things of which folly is a consequence, viz.
to withdraw his sense from spiritual things and to plunge
it into earthly things. The same thing happens in regard
to other sins; for the lustful man desires pleasure, without
which there is no sin, although he does not desire sin
simply, for he would wish to enjoy the pleasure without
sin.

Reply Ohj. 3. Folly is opposed to the precepts about the
contemplation of truth, of which we have spoken above
(Q. XVI.) when we were treating of knowledge and under-
standing.

Third Article,
whether folly is a daughter of lust ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that folly is not a daughter of lust.
For Gregory {Moral, xxxi.) enumerates the daughters of lust,
among which however he makes no mention of folly. There-
fore folly does not proceed from lust.

Obj. 2. Further, The Apostle says (i Cor. iii. 19) : The
wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Now, accord-
ing to Gregory {Moral, x.) the wisdom of this world consists
in covering the heart with crafty devices ; and this savours
of duplicity. Therefore folly is a daughter of duplicity
rather than of lust.

Obj. 3. Further, Anger especially is the cause of fury
and madness in some persons; and this pertains to folly.
Therefore folly arises from anger rather than from lust.

On the contrary, It is written (Prov. vii. 22) : Immedi-
ately he followeth her, i.e. the harlot . . . not knowing that
he is drawn like a fool to bonds.

I answer that, As already stated (A. 2), folly, in so far as
it is a sin, is caused by the spiritual sense being dulled, so
as to be incapable of judging spiritual things. Now man's
sense is plunged into earthly things chiefly by lust, which
is about the greatest pleasures; and these absorb the mind

569 FOLLY Q. 46. Art. 3

more than any others. Therefore the folly which is a sin,
arises chiefly from lust.

Reply Ohj. i. It is part of folly that a man should have
a distaste for God and His gifts. Hence Gregory mentions
two daughters of lust, pertaining to folly, namely, hatred
of God and despair of the life to come ; thus he divides folly
into two parts as it were.

Reply Ohj. 2. These words of the Apostle are to be under-
stood, not causally but essentially, because, to wit, worldly
wisdom itself is folly with God. Hence it does not follow
that whatever belongs to worldly wisdom, is a cause of this
folly.

Reply Ohj. 3. Anger by reason of its keenness, as stated
above (L-H. Q. XLVHL, A A. 2, 3, 4), produces a great
change in the nature of the body, wherefore it conduces
very much to the folly which results from a bodily impedi-
ment. On the other hand the folly which is caused by a
spiritual impediment, viz. by the mind being plunged into
earthly things, arises chiefly from lust, as stated above.

Printed in Englami.

^->x

NO

•

CTN

TJ

vO

0)

c^

•

hD

C

W

<«•

sO

-4

0)

1

o

rH

•£},

•

o

cr

H

O

•^

o

M

£

M

1

PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MLL>iA£VAL STUDIES

59 QUEEN'S PARK CRESCENT

TORONTO— 5, CANADA

3656'

L>;Ti'o.:-,fc\

i

At ^VuvulM

Ih

i

1^ Wk Un 1^ JK

1

1^