Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIb/Q19

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q18 Q20→



Latin English
IIª-IIae q. 19 pr. Deinde considerandum est de dono timoris. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duodecim. Primo, utrum Deus debeat timeri. Secundo, de divisione timoris in timorem filialem, initialem, servilem et mundanum. Tertio, utrum timor mundanus semper sit malus. Quarto, utrum timor servilis sit bonus. Quinto, utrum sit idem in substantia cum filiali. Sexto, utrum adveniente caritate excludatur timor servilis. Septimo, utrum timor sit initium sapientiae. Octavo, utrum timor initialis sit idem in substantia cum timore filiali. Nono, utrum timor sit donum spiritus sancti. Decimo, utrum crescat crescente caritate. Undecimo, utrum maneat in patria. Duodecimo, quid respondeat ei in beatitudinibus et fructibus. Question 19. The gift of fear Is God to be feared? The division of fear into filial, initial, servile and worldly Is worldly fear always evil? Is servile fear good? Is it substantially the same as filial fear? Does servile fear depart when charity comes? Is fear the beginning of wisdom? Is initial fear substantially the same as filial fear? Is fear a gift of the Holy Ghost? Does it grow when charity grows? Does it remain in heaven? Which of the beatitudes and fruits correspond to it?
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus timeri non possit. Obiectum enim timoris est malum futurum, ut supra habitum est. Sed Deus est expers omnis mali, cum sit ipsa bonitas. Ergo Deus timeri non potest. Objection 1. It would seem that God cannot be feared. For the object of fear is a future evil, as stated above (I-II, 41, 2,3). But God is free of all evil, since He is goodness itself. Therefore God cannot be feared.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, timor spei opponitur. Sed spem habemus de Deo. Ergo non possumus etiam simul eum timere. Objection 2. Further, fear is opposed to hope. Now we hope in God. Therefore we cannot fear Him at the same time.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., illa timemus ex quibus nobis mala proveniunt. Sed mala non proveniunt nobis a Deo, sed ex nobis ipsis, secundum illud Osee XIII, perditio tua, Israel, ex me auxilium tuum. Ergo Deus timeri non debet. Objection 3. Further, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 5), "we fear those things whence evil comes to us." But evil comes to us, not from God, but from ourselves, according to Hosea 13:9: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is . . . in Me." Therefore God is not to be feared.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. X, quis non timebit te, o rex gentium? Et Malach. I, si ego dominus, ubi timor meus? On the contrary, It is written (Jeremiah 10:7): "Who shall not fear Thee, O King of nations?" and (Malachi 1:6): "If I be a master, where is My fear?"
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut spes habet duplex obiectum, quorum unum est ipsum bonum futurum cuius adeptionem quis expectat, aliud autem est auxilium alicuius per quem expectat se adipisci quod sperat; ita etiam et timor duplex obiectum habere potest, quorum unum est ipsum malum quod homo refugit, aliud autem est illud a quo malum provenire potest. Primo igitur modo Deus, qui est ipsa bonitas, obiectum timoris esse non potest. Sed secundo modo potest esse obiectum timoris, inquantum scilicet ab ipso, vel per comparationem ad ipsum, nobis potest aliquod malum imminere. Ab ipso quidem potest nobis imminere malum poenae, quod non est simpliciter malum, sed secundum quid, bonum autem simpliciter. Cum enim bonum dicatur in ordine ad finem, malum autem importat huius ordinis privationem; illud est malum simpliciter quod excludit ordinem a fine ultimo, quod est malum culpae. Malum autem poenae est quidem malum, inquantum privat aliquod particulare bonum, est tamen bonum simpliciter, inquantum dependet ab ordine finis ultimi. Per comparationem autem ad Deum potest nobis malum culpae provenire, si ab eo separemur. Et per hunc modum Deus potest et debet timeri. 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 altogether 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 speaking, 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit secundum quod malum est timoris obiectum. Reply to Objection 1. This objection considers the object of fear as being the evil which a man shuns.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in Deo est considerare et iustitiam, secundum quam peccantes punit; et misericordiam, secundum quam nos liberat. Secundum igitur considerationem iustitiae ipsius, insurgit in nobis timor, secundum autem considerationem misericordiae, consurgit in nobis spes. Et ita secundum diversas rationes Deus est obiectum spei et timoris. Reply to Objection 2. In God, we may consider both His justice, in respect of which He punishes those who sin, and His mercy, in respect of which He sets us free: in us the consideration of His justice gives rise to fear, but the consideration of His mercy gives rise to hope, so that, accordingly, God is the object of both hope and fear, but under different aspects.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod malum culpae non est a Deo sicut ab auctore, sed est a nobis ipsis, inquantum a Deo recedimus. Malum autem poenae est quidem a Deo auctore inquantum habet rationem boni, prout scilicet est iustum, sed quod iuste nobis poena infligatur, hoc primordialiter ex merito nostri peccati contingit. Secundum quem modum dicitur Sap. I, quod Deus mortem non fecit, sed impii manibus et verbis accersierunt illam. Reply to Objection 3. The evil of fault is not from God as its author but from us, in for far as we forsake God: while the evil of punishment is from God as its author, in so far as it has character of a good, since it is something just, through being inflicted on us justly; although originally this is due to the demerit of sin: thus it is written (Wisdom 1:13-16): "God made not death . . . but the wicked with works and words have called it to them."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter dividatur timor in filialem, initialem, servilem et mundanum. Damascenus enim, in II Lib., ponit sex species timoris, scilicet segnitiem, erubescentiam, et alia de quibus supra dictum est, quae in hac divisione non tanguntur. Ergo videtur quod haec divisio timoris sit inconveniens. Objection 1. It would seem that fear is unfittingly divided into filial, initial, servile and worldly fear. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) that there are six kinds of fear, viz. "laziness, shamefacedness," etc. of which we have treated above (I-II, 41, 4), and which are not mentioned in the division in question. Therefore this division of fear seems unfitting.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, quilibet horum timorum vel est bonus vel malus. Sed est aliquis timor, scilicet naturalis, qui neque bonus est moraliter, cum sit in Daemonibus, secundum illud Iac. II, Daemones credunt et contremiscunt; neque etiam est malus, cum sit in Christo, secundum illud Marc. XIV coepit Iesus pavere et taedere. Ergo timor insufficienter dividitur secundum praedicta. Objection 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 2:19, "The devils . . . believe and tremble," nor evil, since it is in Christ, according to Mark 14:33, Jesus "began to fear and be heavy." Therefore the aforesaid division of fear is insufficient.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, alia est habitudo filii ad patrem, et uxoris ad virum, et servi ad dominum. Sed timor filialis, qui est filii in comparatione ad patrem, distinguitur a timore servili, qui est servi per comparationem ad dominum. Ergo etiam timor castus, qui videtur esse uxoris per comparationem ad virum, debet distingui ab omnibus istis timoribus. Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, sicut timor servilis timet poenam, ita timor initialis et mundanus. Non ergo debuerunt ad invicem distingui isti timores. Objection 4. Further, even as servile fear fears punishment, so do initial and worldly fear. Therefore no distinction should be made between them.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 5 Praeterea, sicut concupiscentia est boni, ita etiam timor est mali. Sed alia est concupiscentia oculorum, qua quis concupiscit bona mundi; alia est concupiscentia carnis, qua quis concupiscit delectationem propriam. Ergo etiam alius est timor mundanus, quo quis timet amittere bona exteriora; et alius est timor humanus, quo quis timet propriae personae detrimentum. Objection 5. Further, even as concupiscence is about some 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est auctoritas Magistri, XXXIV dist. III Lib. Sent. On the contrary stands the authority of the Master (Sent. iii, D, 34).
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de timore nunc agimus secundum quod per ipsum aliquo modo ad Deum convertimur vel ab eo avertimur. Cum enim obiectum timoris sit malum, quandoque homo propter mala quae timet a Deo recedit, et iste dicitur timor humanus vel mundanus. Quandoque autem homo per mala quae timet ad Deum convertitur et ei inhaeret. Quod quidem malum est duplex, scilicet malum poenae, et malum culpae. Si igitur aliquis convertatur ad Deum et ei inhaereat propter timorem poenae, erit timor servilis. Si autem propter timorem culpae, erit timor filialis, nam filiorum est timere offensam patris. Si autem propter utrumque, est timor initialis, qui est medius inter utrumque timorem. Utrum autem malum culpae possit timeri, supra habitum est, cum de passione timoris ageretur. I 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 withdraws 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, 42, 3) when we were considering the passion of fear.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Damascenus dividit timorem secundum quod est passio animae. Haec autem divisio timoris attenditur in ordine ad Deum, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Damascene divides fear as a passion of the soul: whereas this division of fear is taken from its relation to God, as explained above.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum morale praecipue consistit in conversione ad Deum, malum autem morale in aversione a Deo. Et ideo omnes praedicti timores vel important bonum morale vel malum. Sed timor naturalis praesupponitur bono et malo morali. Et ideo non connumeratur inter istos timores. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod habitudo servi ad dominum est per potestatem domini servum sibi subiicientis, sed habitudo filii ad patrem, vel uxoris ad virum, est e converso per affectum filii se subdentis patri vel uxoris se coniungentis viro unione amoris. Unde timor filialis et castus ad idem pertinent, quia per caritatis amorem Deus pater noster efficitur, secundum illud Rom. VIII, accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus, abba, pater; et secundum eandem caritatem dicitur etiam sponsus noster, secundum illud II ad Cor. XI, despondi vos uni viro, virginem castam exhibere Christo. Timor autem servilis ad aliud pertinet, quia caritatem in sua ratione non includit. Reply to Objection 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 affection 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 Romans 8:15, "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba [Father]"; and by this same charity He is called our spouse, according to 2 Corinthians 11:2, "I 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod praedicti tres timores respiciunt poenam sed diversimode. Nam timor mundanus sive humanus respicit poenam a Deo avertentem, quam quandoque inimici Dei infligunt vel comminantur. Sed timor servilis et initialis respiciunt poenam per quam homines attrahuntur ad Deum, divinitus inflictam vel comminatam. Quam quidem poenam principaliter timor servilis respicit, timor autem initialis secundario. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod eadem ratione homo a Deo avertitur propter timorem amittendi bona mundana, et propter timorem amittendi incolumitatem proprii corporis, quia bona exteriora ad corpus pertinent. Et ideo uterque timor hic pro eodem computatur, quamvis mala quae timentur sint diversa, sicut et bona quae concupiscuntur. Ex qua quidem diversitate provenit diversitas peccatorum secundum speciem, quibus tamen omnibus commune est a Deo abducere. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor mundanus non semper sit malus. Ad timorem enim humanum pertinere videtur quod homines reveremur. Sed quidam vituperantur de hoc quod homines non reverentur, ut patet Luc. XVIII de illo iudice iniquo, qui nec Deum timebat nec homines reverebatur. Ergo videtur quod timor mundanus non semper sit malus. Objection 1. It would seem 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 18:2) that he "feared not God, nor regarded man." Therefore it seems that worldly fear is not always evil.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad timorem mundanum videntur pertinere poenae quae per potestates saeculares infliguntur. Sed per huiusmodi poenas provocamur ad bene agendum, secundum illud Rom. XIII, vis non timere potestatem? Bonum fac, et habebis laudem ex illa. Ergo timor mundanus non semper est malus. Objection 2. Further, worldly fear seems to have reference to the punishments inflicted by the secular power. Now such like punishments incite us to good actions, according to Romans 13:3, "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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod inest nobis naturaliter non videtur esse malum, eo quod naturalia sunt nobis a Deo. Sed naturale est homini ut timeat proprii corporis detrimentum et amissionem bonorum temporalium, quibus praesens vita sustentatur. Ergo videtur quod timor mundanus non semper sit malus. Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. X, nolite timere eos qui corpus occidunt, ubi timor mundanus prohibetur. Nihil autem divinitus prohibetur nisi malum. Ergo timor mundanus est malus. On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matthew 10:28): "Fear ye not them that kill the body," thus forbidding worldly fear. Now nothing but what is evil is forbidden by God. Therefore worldly fear is evil.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supradictis patet, actus morales et habitus ex obiectis et nomen et speciem habent. Proprium autem obiectum appetitivi motus est bonum finale. Et ideo a proprio fine omnis motus appetitivus et specificatur et nominatur. Si quis enim cupiditatem nominaret amorem laboris, quia propter cupiditatem homines laborant, non recte nominaret, non enim cupidi laborem quaerunt sicut finem, sed sicut id quod est ad finem, sicut finem autem quaerunt divitias, unde cupiditas recte nominatur desiderium vel amor divitiarum, quod est malum. Et per hunc modum amor mundanus proprie dicitur quo aliquis mundo innititur tanquam fini. Et sic amor mundanus semper est malus. Timor autem ex amore nascitur, illud enim homo timet amittere quod amat; ut patet per Augustinum, in libro octogintatrium quaest. Et ideo timor mundanus est qui procedit ab amore mundano tanquam a mala radice. Et propter hoc et ipse timor mundanus semper est malus. I answer that, As shown above (I-II, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 1; I-II, 54, 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 specified 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 incorrect, 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. lxxxiii, qu. 33). Now worldly fear is that which arises from worldly love as from an evil root, for which reason worldly fear is always evil.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquis potest revereri homines dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum est in eis aliquod divinum, puta bonum gratiae aut virtutis, vel saltem naturalis Dei imaginis, et hoc modo vituperantur qui homines non reverentur. Alio modo potest aliquis homines revereri inquantum Deo contrariantur. Et sic laudantur qui homines non reverentur, secundum illud Eccli. XLVIII, de Elia vel Elisaeo, in diebus suis non pertimuit principem. Reply to Objection 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 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 Elias or Eliseus (Sirach 48:13): "In his days he feared not the prince."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod potestates saeculares, quando inferunt poenas ad retrahendum a peccato, in hoc sunt Dei ministri, secundum illud Rom. XIII, minister enim Dei est, vindex in iram ei qui male agit. Et secundum hoc timere potestatem saecularem non pertinet ad timorem mundanum, sed ad timorem servilem vel initialem. Reply to Objection 2. When the secular power inflicts punishment in order to withdraw men from sin, it is acting as God's minister, according to Romans 13:4, "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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod naturale est quod homo refugiat proprii corporis detrimentum, vel etiam damna temporalium rerum, sed quod homo propter ista recedat a iustitia, est contra rationem naturalem. Unde etiam philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod quaedam sunt, scilicet peccatorum opera, ad quae nullo timore aliquis debet cogi, quia peius est huiusmodi peccata committere quam poenas quascumque pati. Reply to Objection 3. It is natural for man to shrink from detriment 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, 1) 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor servilis non sit bonus. Quia cuius usus est malus, ipsum quoque malum est. Sed usus timoris servilis est malus, quia sicut Glossa dicit Rom. VIII, qui timore aliquid facit, etsi bonum sit quod facit, non tamen bene facit. Ergo timor servilis non est bonus. Objection 1. It would seem 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 Romans 8:15, "if a man do anything through fear, although the deed be good, it is not well done." Therefore servile fear is not good.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod ex radice peccati oritur non est bonum. Sed timor servilis oritur ex radice peccati, quia super illud Iob III, quare non in vulva mortuus sum? Dicit Gregorius, cum ex peccato praesens poena metuitur, et amissa Dei facies non amatur, timor ex tumore est, non ex humilitate. Ergo timor servilis est malus. Objection 2. Further, no good grows from a sinful root. Now servile fear grows from a sinful root, because when commenting on Job 3:11, "Why did I not die in the womb?" Gregory says (Moral. iv, 25): "When a man dreads the punishment which confronts him for his sin and no longer loves the friendship of God which he has lost, his fear is born of pride, not of humility." Therefore servile fear is evil.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicuti amori caritatis opponitur amor mercenarius, ita timori casto videtur opponi timor servilis. Sed amor mercenarius semper est malus. Ergo et timor servilis. Objection 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. Therefore servile fear is also.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, nullum malum est a spiritu sancto. Sed timor servilis est ex spiritu sancto, quia super illud Rom. VIII, non accepistis spiritum servitutis etc., dicit Glossa, unus spiritus est qui facit duos timores, scilicet servilem et castum. Ergo timor servilis non est malus. On the contrary, Nothing evil is from the Holy Ghost. But servile fear is from the Holy Ghost, since a gloss on Romans 8:15, "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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod timor servilis ex parte servilitatis habet quod sit malus. Servitus enim libertati opponitur. Unde, cum liber sit qui causa sui est, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys. servus est qui non causa sui operatur, sed quasi ab extrinseco motus. Quicumque autem ex amore aliquid facit, quasi ex seipso operatur, quia ex propria inclinatione movetur ad operandum. Et ideo contra rationem servilitatis est quod aliquis ex amore operetur. Sic ergo timor servilis, inquantum servilis est, caritati contrariatur. Si ergo servilitas esset de ratione timoris, oporteret quod timor servilis simpliciter esset malus, sicut adulterium simpliciter est malum, quia id ex quo contrariatur caritati pertinet ad adulterii speciem. Sed praedicta servilitas non pertinet ad speciem timoris servilis, sicut nec informitas ad speciem fidei informis. Species enim moralis habitus vel actus ex obiecto accipitur. Obiectum autem timoris servilis est poena; cui accidit quod bonum cui contrariatur poena ametur tanquam finis ultimus, et per consequens poena timeatur tanquam principale malum, quod contingit in non habente caritatem; vel quod ordinetur in Deum sicut in finem, et per consequens poena non timeatur tanquam principale malum, quod contingit in habente caritatem. Non enim tollitur species habitus per hoc quod eius obiectum vel finis ordinatur ad ulteriorem finem. Et ideo timor servilis secundum suam substantiam bonus est, sed servilitas eius mala est. I 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" (Metaph. i, 2), 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 does 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 is servility is evil.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud Augustini intelligendum est de eo qui facit aliquid timore servili inquantum est servilis, ut scilicet non amet iustitiam, sed solum timeat poenam. Reply to Objection 1. This saying of Augustine is to be applied to a man who does something through servile fear as such, so that he loves not justice, and fears nothing but the punishment.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor servilis secundum suam substantiam non oritur ex tumore. Sed eius servilitas ex tumore nascitur, inquantum scilicet homo affectum suum non vult subiicere iugo iustitiae per amorem. Reply to Objection 2. Servile fear as to its substance is not born of pride, but its servility is, inasmuch as man is unwilling, by love, to subject his affections to the yoke of justice.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod amor mercenarius dicitur qui Deum diligit propter bona temporalia. Quod secundum se caritati contrariatur. Et ideo amor mercenarius semper est malus. Sed timor servilis secundum suam substantiam non importat nisi timorem poenae, sive timeatur ut principale malum, sive non timeatur ut malum principale. Reply to Objection 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 principal evil.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor servilis sit idem in substantia cum timore filiali. Ita enim videtur se habere timor filialis ad servilem sicut fides formata ad informem, quorum unum est cum peccato mortali, aliud vero non. Sed eadem secundum substantiam est fides formata et informis. Ergo etiam idem est secundum substantiam timor servilis et filialis. Objection 1. It would seem 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, habitus diversificantur secundum obiecta. Sed idem est obiectum timoris servilis et filialis, quia utroque timore timetur Deus. Ergo idem est secundum substantiam timor servilis et timor filialis. Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut homo sperat frui Deo et etiam ab eo beneficia obtinere, ita etiam timet separari a Deo et poenas ab eo pati. Sed eadem est spes qua speramus frui Deo et qua speramus alia beneficia obtinere ab eo, ut dictum est. Ergo etiam idem est timor filialis, quo timemus separationem a Deo, et timor servilis, quo timemus ab eo puniri. Objection 3. Further, just as man hopes to enjoy God and to obtain favors 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 favors from Him, as stated above (17, 2, ad 2). Therefore filial fear, whereby we fear separation from God, is the same as servile fear whereby we fear His punishments.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, super Prim. Canonic. Ioan., dicit esse duos timores, unum servilem, et alium filialem vel castum. On the contrary, Augustine (In prim. canon. Joan. Tract. ix) says that there are two fears, one servile, another filial or chaste fear.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod proprie obiectum timoris est malum. Et quia actus et habitus distinguuntur secundum obiecta, ut ex dictis patet, necesse est quod secundum diversitatem malorum etiam timores specie differant. Differunt autem specie malum poenae, quod refugit timor servilis, et malum culpae, quod refugit timor filialis, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde manifestum est quod timor servilis et filialis non sunt idem secundum substantiam, sed differunt specie. I answer that, The proper object of fear is evil. And since acts and habits are diversified by their objects, as shown above (I-II, 54, 2), it follows of necessity 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 (Article 2). Hence it is evident that servile and filial fear are not the same substantially but differ specifically.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fides formata et informis non differunt secundum obiectum, utraque enim fides et credit Deo et credit Deum, sed differunt solum per aliquod extrinsecum, scilicet secundum praesentiam et absentiam caritatis. Et ideo non differunt secundum substantiam. Sed timor servilis et filialis differunt secundum obiecta. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 1. 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor servilis et timor filialis non habent eandem habitudinem ad Deum, nam timor servilis respicit Deum sicut principium inflictivum poenarum; timor autem filialis respicit Deum non sicut principium activum culpae, sed potius sicut terminum a quo refugit separari per culpam. Et ideo ex hoc obiecto quod est Deus non consequuntur identitatem speciei. Quia etiam motus naturales secundum habitudinem ad aliquem terminum specie diversificantur, non enim est idem motus specie qui est ab albedine et qui est ad albedinem. Reply to Objection 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 separated 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod spes respicit Deum sicut principium tam respectu fruitionis divinae quam respectu cuiuscumque alterius beneficii. Non sic autem est de timore. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 3. Hope looks upon God as the principle not only of the enjoyment of God, but also of any other favor whatever. This cannot be said of fear; and so there is no comparison.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor servilis non remaneat cum caritate. Dicit enim Augustinus, super Prim. Canonic. Ioan., quod cum coeperit caritas habitare, pellitur timor, qui ei praeparavit locum. Objection 1. It would seem that servile fear does not remain with charity. For Augustine says (In prim. canon. Joan. Tract. ix) that "when charity takes up its abode, it drives away fear which had prepared a place for it."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, caritas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis, ut dicitur Rom. V. Sed ubi spiritus domini, ibi libertas, ut habetur II ad Cor. III. Cum ergo libertas excludat servitutem, videtur quod timor servilis expellatur caritate adveniente. Objection 2. Further, "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us" (Romans 5:5). Now "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). Since then freedom excludes servitude, it seems that servile fear is driven away when charity comes.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, timor servilis ex amore sui causatur, inquantum poena diminuit proprium bonum. Sed amor Dei expellit amorem sui, facit enim contemnere seipsum, ut patet ex auctoritate Augustini, XIV de Civ. Dei, quod amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui facit civitatem Dei. Ergo videtur quod veniente caritate timor servilis tollatur. Objection 3. Further, servile fear is caused by self-love, in so far as punishment diminishes one's own good. Now love of God drives away self-love, for it makes us despise ourselves: thus Augustine testifies (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28) 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod timor servilis est donum spiritus sancti, ut supra dictum est. Sed dona spiritus sancti non tolluntur adveniente caritate, per quam spiritus sanctus in nobis habitat. Ergo veniente caritate non tollitur timor servilis. On the contrary, Servile fear is a gift of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Article 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod timor servilis ex amore sui causatur, quia est timor poenae, quae est detrimentum proprii boni. Unde hoc modo timor poenae potest stare cum caritate sicut et amor sui, eiusdem enim rationis est quod homo cupiat bonum suum et quod timeat eo privari. Amor autem sui tripliciter se potest habere ad caritatem. Uno enim modo contrariatur caritati, secundum scilicet quod aliquis in amore proprii boni finem constituit. Alio vero modo in caritate includitur, secundum quod homo se propter Deum et in Deo diligit. Tertio modo a caritate quidem distinguitur, sed caritati non contrariatur, puta cum aliquis diligit quidem seipsum secundum rationem proprii boni, ita tamen quod in hoc proprio bono non constituat finem, sicut etiam et ad proximum potest esse aliqua alia specialis dilectio praeter dilectionem caritatis, quae fundatur in Deo, dum proximus diligitur vel ratione consanguinitatis vel alicuius alterius conditionis humanae, quae tamen referibilis sit ad caritatem. Sic igitur et timor poenae includitur uno modo in caritate, nam separari a Deo est quaedam poena, quam caritas maxime refugit. Unde hoc pertinet ad timorem castum. Alio autem modo contrariatur caritati, secundum quod aliquis refugit poenam contrariam bono suo naturali sicut principale malum contrarium bono quod diligitur ut finis. Et sic timor poenae non est cum caritate. Alio modo timor poenae distinguitur quidem secundum substantiam a timore casto, quia scilicet homo timet malum poenale non ratione separationis a Deo, sed inquantum est nocivum proprii boni, nec tamen in illo bono constituitur eius finis, unde nec illud malum formidatur tanquam principale malum. Et talis timor poenae potest esse cum caritate. Sed iste timor poenae non dicitur esse servilis nisi quando poena formidatur sicut principale malum, ut ex dictis patet. Et ideo timor inquantum servilis non manet cum caritate, sed substantia timoris servilis cum caritate manere potest, sicut amor sui manere potest cum caritate. I 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. On one way it is contrary to charity, when a man places his end in the love of his own good. On another way it is included in charity, when a man loves himself for the sake of God and in God. On 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 neighbor, 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, which charity shuns exceedingly; so that this belongs to chaste fear. On 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. On 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 punishment is dreaded as a principal evil, as explained above (A2,4). 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur de timore inquantum servilis est. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine is speaking of fear considered as servile:
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 ad 2 Et sic etiam procedunt aliae duae rationes. and such is the sense of the two other objections.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor non sit initium sapientiae. Initium enim est aliquid rei. Sed timor non est aliquid sapientiae, quia timor est in vi appetitiva, sapientia autem est in vi intellectiva. Ergo videtur quod timor non sit initium sapientiae. Objection 1. It would seem 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil est principium sui ipsius. Sed timor Dei ipse est sapientia, ut dicitur Iob XXVIII. Ergo videtur quod timor Dei non sit initium sapientiae. Objection 2. Further, nothing is the beginning of itself. "Now fear of the Lord, that is wisdom," according to Job 28:28. Therefore it seems that fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, principio non est aliquid prius. Sed timore est aliquid prius, quia fides praecedit timorem. Ergo videtur quod timor non sit initium sapientiae. Objection 3. Further, nothing is prior to the beginning. But something is prior to fear, since faith precedes fear. Therefore it seems that fear is not the beginning of wisdom.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalm., initium sapientiae timor domini. On the contrary, It is written in the Psalm 110:10: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod initium sapientiae potest aliquid dici dupliciter, uno modo, quia est initium ipsius sapientiae quantum ad eius essentiam; alio modo, quantum ad eius effectum. Sicut initium artis secundum eius essentiam sunt principia ex quibus procedit ars, initium autem artis secundum eius effectum est unde incipit ars operari; sicut si dicamus quod principium artis aedificativae est fundamentum, quia ibi incipit aedificator operari. Cum autem sapientia sit cognitio divinorum, ut infra dicetur, aliter consideratur a nobis et aliter a philosophis. Quia enim vita nostra ad divinam fruitionem ordinatur et dirigitur secundum quandam participationem divinae naturae, quae est per gratiam; sapientia secundum nos non solum consideratur ut est cognoscitiva Dei, sicut apud philosophos; sed etiam ut est directiva humanae vitae, quae non solum dirigitur secundum rationes humanas, sed etiam secundum rationes divinas, ut patet per Augustinum, XII de Trin. Sic igitur initium sapientiae secundum eius essentiam sunt prima principia sapientiae, quae sunt articuli fidei. Et secundum hoc fides dicitur sapientiae initium. Sed quantum ad effectum, initium sapientiae est unde sapientia incipit operari. Et hoc modo timor est initium sapientiae. Aliter tamen timor servilis, et aliter timor filialis. Timor enim servilis est sicut principium extra disponens ad sapientiam, inquantum aliquis timore poenae discedit a peccato, et per hoc habilitatur ad sapientiae effectum; secundum illud Eccli. I, timor domini expellit peccatum. Timor autem castus vel filialis est initium sapientiae sicut primus sapientiae effectus. Cum enim ad sapientiam pertineat quod humana vita reguletur secundum rationes divinas, hinc oportet sumere principium, ut homo Deum revereatur et se ei subiiciat, sic enim consequenter in omnibus secundum Deum regulabitur. I answer that, A thing may be called the beginning of wisdom in two ways: in one way because it is the beginning 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 wherefrom 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 (45, 1), it is considered by us in one way, and in another way by philosophers. For, seeing that our life is ordained to the enjoyment of God, and is directed thereto according to a participation 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, 14). 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 principle 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 Sirach 1:27, "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 regulation 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa ostendit quod timor non est principium sapientiae quantum ad essentiam sapientiae. Reply to Objection 1. This argument proves that fear is not the beginning of wisdom as to the essence of wisdom.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor Dei comparatur ad totam vitam humanam per sapientiam Dei regulatam sicut radix ad arborem, unde dicitur Eccli. I, radix sapientiae est timere dominum, rami enim illius longaevi. Et ideo sicut radix virtute dicitur esse tota arbor, ita timor Dei dicitur esse sapientia. Reply to Objection 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 (Sirach 1:25): "The root of wisdom is to fear the Lord, for [Vulgate: '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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, alio modo fides est principium sapientiae et alio modo timor. Unde dicitur Eccli. XXV, timor Dei initium dilectionis eius, initium autem fidei agglutinandum est ei. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above, faith is the beginning of wisdom in one way, and fear, in another. Hence it is written (Sirach 25:16): "The fear of God is the beginning of love: and the beginning of faith is to be fast joined to it."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor initialis differat secundum substantiam a timore filiali. Timor enim filialis ex dilectione causatur. Sed timor initialis est principium dilectionis, secundum illud Eccli. XXV, timor domini initium est dilectionis. Ergo timor initialis est alius a filiali. Objection 1. It would seem that initial fear differs substantially from filial fear. For filial fear is caused by love. Now initial fear is the beginning of love, according to Sirach 25:16, "The fear of God is the beginning of love." Therefore initial fear is distinct from filial fear.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, timor initialis timet poenam, quae est obiectum servilis timoris, et sic videtur quod timor initialis sit idem cum servili. Sed timor servilis est alius a filiali. Ergo etiam timor initialis est alius secundum substantiam a filiali. Objection 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 initial fear.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, medium differt eadem ratione ab utroque extremorum. Sed timor initialis est medium inter timorem servilem et timorem filialem. Ergo differt et a filiali et a servili. Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod perfectum et imperfectum non diversificant substantiam rei. Sed timor initialis et filialis differunt secundum perfectionem et imperfectionem caritatis, ut patet per Augustinum, in Prim. Canonic. Ioan. Ergo timor initialis non differt secundum substantiam a filiali. 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 prim. canon. Joan. Tract. ix). Therefore initial fear does not differ substantially from filial fear.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod timor initialis dicitur ex eo quod est initium. Sed cum et timor servilis et timor filialis sint aliquo modo initium sapientiae, uterque potest aliquo modo initialis dici. Sed sic non accipitur initialis secundum quod distinguitur a timore servili et filiali. Sed accipitur secundum quod competit statui incipientium, in quibus inchoatur quidam timor filialis per inchoationem caritatis; non tamen est in eis timor filialis perfecte, quia nondum pervenerunt ad perfectionem caritatis. Et ideo timor initialis hoc modo se habet ad filialem, sicut caritas imperfecta ad perfectam. Caritas autem perfecta et imperfecta non differunt secundum essentiam, sed solum secundum statum. Et ideo dicendum est quod etiam timor initialis, prout hic sumitur, non differt secundum essentiam a timore filiali. I answer that, Initial fear is so called because it is a beginning [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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod timor qui est initium dilectionis est timor servilis, qui introducit caritatem sicut seta introducit linum, ut Augustinus dicit. Vel, si hoc referatur ad timorem initialem, dicitur esse dilectionis initium non absolute, sed quantum ad statum caritatis perfectae. Reply to Objection 1. The fear which is a beginning 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor initialis non timet poenam sicut proprium obiectum, sed inquantum habet aliquid de timore servili adiunctum. Qui secundum substantiam manet quidem cum caritate, servilitate remota, sed actus eius manet quidem cum caritate imperfecta in eo qui non solum movetur ad bene agendum ex amore iustitiae, sed etiam ex timore poenae; sed iste actus cessat in eo qui habet caritatem perfectam, quae foras mittit timorem habentem poenam, ut dicitur I Ioan. IV. Reply to Objection 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 substance, 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 punishment, though this same act ceases in the man who has perfect charity, which "casteth out fear," according to 1 John 4:18.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod timor initialis est medium inter timorem filialem et servilem non sicut inter ea quae sunt unius generis; sed sicut imperfectum est medium inter ens perfectum et non ens, ut dicitur in II Metaphys.; quod tamen est idem secundum substantiam cum ente perfecto, differt autem totaliter a non ente. Reply to Objection 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 Metaph. ii, for it is the same substantially as the perfect being, while it differs altogether from non-being.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor non sit donum spiritus sancti. Nullum enim donum spiritus sancti opponitur virtuti, quae etiam est a spiritu sancto, alioquin spiritus sanctus esset sibi contrarius. Sed timor opponitur spei, quae est virtus. Ergo timor non est donum spiritus sancti. Objection 1. It would seem that fear is not a gift of the Holy Ghost. For no gift of the Holy Ghost is opposed to a virtue, which is also from the Holy Ghost; 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtutis theologicae proprium est quod Deum habeat pro obiecto. Sed timor habet Deum pro obiecto, inquantum Deus timetur. Ergo timor non est donum, sed virtus theologica. Objection 2. Further, it is proper to a theological virtue to have God for its object. But fear has God for its object, in so far as God is feared. Therefore fear is not a gift, but a theological virtue.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, timor ex amore consequitur. Sed amor ponitur quaedam virtus theologica. Ergo etiam timor est virtus theologica, quasi ad idem pertinens. Objection 3. Further, fear arises from love. But love is reckoned a theological virtue. Therefore fear also is a theological virtue, being connected with the same matter, as it were.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 4 Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, II Moral., quod timor datur contra superbiam. Sed superbiae opponitur virtus humilitatis. Ergo etiam timor sub virtute comprehenditur. Objection 4. Further, Gregory says (Moral. ii, 49) 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 5 Praeterea, dona sunt perfectiora virtutibus, dantur enim in adiutorium virtutum, ut Gregorius dicit, II Moral. Sed spes est perfectior timore, quia spes respicit bonum, timor malum. Cum ergo spes sit virtus, non debet dici quod timor sit donum. Objection 5. Further, the gifts are more perfect than the virtues, since they are bestowed in support of the virtues as Gregory says (Moral. ii, 49). 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod Isaiae XI timor domini enumeratur inter septem dona spiritus sancti. On the contrary, The fear of the Lord is numbered among the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost (Isaiah 11:3).
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod multiplex est timor, ut supra dictum est. Timor autem humanus, ut dicit Augustinus, in libro de gratia et Lib. Arb., non est donum Dei, hoc enim timore Petrus negavit Christum, sed ille timor de quo dictum est, illum timete qui potest animam et corpus mittere in Gehennam. Similiter etiam timor servilis non est numerandus inter septem dona spiritus sancti, licet sit a spiritu sancto. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Nat. et gratia, potest habere annexam voluntatem peccandi, dona autem spiritus sancti non possunt esse cum voluntate peccandi, quia non sunt sine caritate, ut dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod timor Dei qui numeratur inter septem dona spiritus sancti est timor filialis sive castus. Dictum est enim supra quod dona spiritus sancti sunt quaedam habituales perfectiones potentiarum animae quibus redduntur bene mobiles a spiritu sancto, sicut virtutibus moralibus potentiae appetitivae redduntur bene mobiles a ratione. Ad hoc autem quod aliquid sit bene mobile ab aliquo movente, primo requiritur ut sit ei subiectum, non repugnans, quia ex repugnantia mobilis ad movens impeditur motus. Hoc autem facit timor filialis vel castus, inquantum per ipsum Deum reveremur, et refugimus nos ipsi subducere. Et ideo timor filialis quasi primum locum tenet ascendendo inter dona spiritus sancti, ultimum autem descendendo; sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte. I answer that, Fear is of several kinds, as stated above (Article 2). Now it is not "human fear," according to Augustine (De Gratia et Lib. Arb. xviii), "that is a gift of God"--for it was by this fear that Peter denied Christ--but that fear of which it was said (Matthew 10:28): "Fear Him that can destroy both soul and body into hell." Again servile fear is not to be reckoned among the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, though it is from Him, because according to Augustine (De Nat. et Grat. lvii) 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-II, 68, 5). It follows, therefore, that the fear of God, which is numbered among the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, is filial or chaste fear. For it was stated above (I-II, 68, 1,3) 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, 4) 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod timor filialis non contrariatur virtuti spei. Non enim per timorem filialem timemus ne nobis deficiat quod speramus obtinere per auxilium divinum, sed timemus ab hoc auxilio nos subtrahere. Et ideo timor filialis et spes sibi invicem cohaerent et se invicem perficiunt. Reply to Objection 1. 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 withdraw ourselves from this help. Wherefore filial fear and hope cling together, and perfect one another.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod proprium et principale obiectum timoris est malum quod quis refugit. Et per hunc modum Deus non potest esse obiectum timoris, sicut supra dictum est. Est autem per hunc modum obiectum spei et aliarum virtutum theologicarum. Quia per virtutem spei non solum innitimur divino auxilio ad adipiscendum quaecumque alia bona; sed principaliter ad adipiscendum ipsum Deum, tanquam principale bonum. Et idem patet in aliis virtutibus theologicis. Reply to Objection 2. The proper and principal object of fear is the evil shunned, and in this way, as stated above (Article 1), 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 Himself, as the principal good. The same evidently applies to the other theological virtues.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc quod amor est principium timoris non sequitur quod timor Dei non sit habitus distinctus a caritate, quae est amor Dei, quia amor est principium omnium affectionum, et tamen in diversis habitibus perficimur circa diversas affectiones. Ideo tamen amor magis habet rationem virtutis quam timor, quia amor respicit bonum, ad quod principaliter virtus ordinatur secundum propriam rationem, ut ex supradictis patet. Et propter hoc etiam spes ponitur virtus. Timor autem principaliter respicit malum, cuius fugam importat. Unde est aliquid minus virtute theologica. Reply to Objection 3. From the fact that love is the origin of fear, it does not follow that the fear of God is not a distinct 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, 55, 3,4); for which reason hope is also reckoned as a virtue; whereas fear principally regards evil, the avoidance of which it denotes, wherefore it is something less than a theological virtue.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dicitur Eccli. X, initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo, hoc est nolle subdi Deo, quod opponitur timori filiali, qui Deum reveretur. Et sic timor excludit principium superbiae, propter quod datur contra superbiam. Nec tamen sequitur quod sit idem cum virtute humilitatis, sed quod sit principium eius, dona enim spiritus sancti sunt principia virtutum intellectualium et moralium, ut supra dictum est. Sed virtutes theologicae sunt principia donorum, ut supra habitum est. Reply to Objection 4. According to Sirach 10:14, "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, 68, 4), while the theological virtues are the origin of the gifts, as stated above (I-II, 69, 4, ad 3).
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 5 Unde patet responsio ad quintum. This suffices for the Reply to the Fifth Objection.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 arg. 1 Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod crescente caritate diminuatur timor. Dicit enim Augustinus, super Prim. Canonic. Ioan., quantum caritas crescit, tantum timor decrescit. Objection 1. It seems that fear decreases when charity increases. For Augustine says (In prim. canon. Joan. Tract. ix): "The more charity increases, the more fear decreases."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 arg. 2 Praeterea, crescente spe diminuitur timor. Sed crescente caritate crescit spes, ut supra habitum est. Ergo crescente caritate diminuitur timor. Objection 2. Further, fear decreases when hope increases. But charity increases when hope increases, as stated above (Question 17, Article 8). Therefore fear decreases when charity increases.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 arg. 3 Praeterea, amor importat unionem, timor autem separationem. Sed crescente unione diminuitur separatio. Ergo crescente amore caritatis diminuitur timor. Objection 3. Further, love implies union, whereas fear implies separation. Now separation decreases when union increases. Therefore fear decreases when the love of charity increases.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod Dei timor non solum inchoat, sed etiam perficit sapientiam, idest quae summe diligit Deum et proximum tanquam seipsum. On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36) that "the fear of God not only begins but also perfects wisdom, whereby we love God above all things, and our neighbor as ourselves."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est timor Dei, sicut dictum est, unus quidem filialis, quo quis timet offensam ipsius vel separationem ab ipso; alius autem servilis, quo quis timet poenam. Timor autem filialis necesse est quod crescat crescente caritate, sicut effectus crescit crescente causa, quanto enim aliquis magis diligit aliquem, tanto magis timet eum offendere et ab eo separari. Sed timor servilis, quantum ad servilitatem, totaliter tollitur caritate adveniente, remanet tamen secundum substantiam timor poenae, ut dictum est. Et iste timor diminuitur caritate crescente, maxime quantum ad actum, quia quanto aliquis magis diligit Deum, tanto minus timet poenam. Primo quidem, quia minus attendit ad proprium bonum, cui contrariatur poena. Secundo, quia firmius inhaerens magis confidit de praemio, et per consequens minus timet de poena. I answer that, Fear is twofold, as stated above (A2,4); 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. For 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 (Article 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 punishment.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur de timore poenae. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine speaks there of the fear of punishment.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor poenae est qui diminuitur crescente spe. Sed ea crescente crescit timor filialis, quia quanto aliquis certius expectat alicuius boni consecutionem per auxilium alterius, tanto magis veretur eum offendere vel ab eo separari. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod timor filialis non importat separationem sed magis subiectionem ad ipsum, separationem autem refugit a subiectione ipsius. Sed quodammodo separationem importat per hoc quod non praesumit se ei adaequare, sed ei se subiicit. Quae etiam separatio invenitur in caritate, inquantum diligit Deum supra se et supra omnia. Unde amor caritatis augmentatus reverentiam timoris non minuit, sed auget. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 arg. 1 Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor non remaneat in patria. Dicitur enim Prov. I, abundantia perfruetur, timore malorum sublato, quod intelligitur de homine iam sapientia perfruente in beatitudine aeterna. Sed omnis timor est alicuius mali, quia malum est obiectum timoris, ut supra dictum est. Ergo nullus timor erit in patria. Objection 1. It would seem that fear does not remain in heaven. For it is written (Proverbs 1:33): "He . . . shall enjoy abundance, 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 (A2,5; I-II, 42, 1). Therefore there will be no fear in heaven.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 arg. 2 Praeterea, homines in patria erunt Deo conformes, secundum illud I Ioan. III, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus. Sed Deus nihil timet. Ergo homines in patria non habebunt aliquem timorem. Objection 2. Further, in heaven men will be conformed to God, according to 1 John 3:2, "When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him." But God fears nothing. Therefore, in heaven, men will have no fear.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 arg. 3 Praeterea, spes est perfectior quam timor, quia spes est respectu boni, timor respectu mali. Sed spes non erit in patria. Ergo nec timor erit in patria. Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalm., timor domini sanctus permanet in saeculum. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 18:10): "The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring for ever and ever."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 co. Respondeo dicendum quod timor servilis, sive timor poenae, nullo modo erit in patria, excluditur enim talis timor per securitatem aeternae beatitudinis, quae est de ipsius beatitudinis ratione, sicut supra dictum est. Timor autem filialis, sicut augetur augmentata caritate, ita caritate perfecta perficietur. Unde non habebit in patria omnino eundem actum quem habet modo. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est quod proprium obiectum timoris est malum possibile, sicut proprium obiectum spei est bonum possibile. Et cum motus timoris sit quasi fugae, importat timor fugam mali ardui possibilis, parva enim mala timorem non inducunt. Sicut autem bonum uniuscuiusque est ut in suo ordine consistat, ita malum uniuscuiusque est ut suum ordinem deserat. Ordo autem creaturae rationalis est ut sit sub Deo et supra ceteras creaturas. Unde sicut malum creaturae rationalis est ut subdat se creaturae inferiori per amorem, ita etiam malum eius est si non Deo se subiiciat, sed in ipsum praesumptuose insiliat vel contemnat. Hoc autem malum creaturae rationali secundum suam naturam consideratae possibile est, propter naturalem liberi arbitrii flexibilitatem, sed in beatis fit non possibile per gloriae perfectionem. Fuga igitur huius mali quod est Deo non subiici, ut possibilis naturae, impossibilis autem beatitudini, erit in patria. In via autem est fuga huius mali ut omnino possibilis. Et ideo Gregorius dicit, XVII Moral., exponens illud Iob XXVI, columnae caeli contremiscunt et pavent ad nutum eius, ipsae, inquit, virtutes caelestium, quae hunc sine cessatione conspiciunt, in ipsa contemplatione contremiscunt. Sed idem tremor, ne eis poenalis sit, non timoris est sed admirationis, quia scilicet admirantur Deum ut supra se existentem et eis incomprehensibilem. Augustinus etiam, in XIV de Civ. Dei, hoc modo ponit timorem in patria, quamvis hoc sub dubio derelinquat. Timor, inquit, ille castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, si erit in futuro saeculo, non erit timor exterrens a malo quod accidere potest; sed tenens in bono quod amitti non potest. Ubi enim boni adepti amor immutabilis est, profecto, si dici potest, mali cavendi timor securus est. Timoris quippe casti nomine ea voluntas significata est qua nos necesse erit nolle peccare, et non sollicitudine infirmitatis ne forte peccemus, sed tranquillitate caritatis cavere peccatum. Aut, si nullius omnino generis timor ibi esse poterit, ita fortasse timor in saeculum saeculi dictus est permanens, quia id permanebit quo timor ipse perducit. 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, 5, 4). But 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 observe 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 forsaking its order. Again, the order of a rational creature is that it should be under God and above other creatures. Hence, just as it is an 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, by 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, expounding the words of Job (26:11), "The pillars of heaven tremble, and dread at His beck," says (Moral. xvii, 29): "The heavenly powers that gaze on Him without ceasing, tremble while contemplating: but their awe, lest it should be of a penal nature, is one not of fear but of wonder," because, to wit, they wonder at God's supereminence and incomprehensibility. Augustine also (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9) in this sense, admits fear in heaven, although he leaves the question doubtful. "If," he says, "this chaste fear that endureth for ever and ever is to be in the future life, it will not be 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 be everlasting."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in auctoritate praedicta excluditur a beatis timor sollicitudinem habens, de malo praecavens, non autem timor securus, ut Augustinus dicit. Reply to Objection 1. 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Dionysius, IX cap. de Div. Nom., eadem et similia sunt Deo et dissimilia, hoc quidem secundum contingentem non imitabilis imitationem, idest inquantum secundum suum posse imitantur Deum, qui non est perfecte imitabilis; hoc autem secundum hoc quod causata minus habent a causa, infinitis mensuris et incomparabilibus deficientia. Unde non oportet quod, si Deo non convenit timor, quia non habet superiorem cui subiiciatur, quod propter hoc non conveniat beatis, quorum beatitudo consistit in perfecta subiectione ad Deum. Reply to Objection 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 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 11 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod spes importat quendam defectum, scilicet futuritionem beatitudinis, quae tollitur per eius praesentiam. Sed timor importat defectum naturalem creaturae, secundum quod in infinitum distat a Deo, quod etiam in patria remanebit. Et ideo timor non evacuabitur totaliter. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 arg. 1 Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod paupertas spiritus non sit beatitudo respondens dono timoris. Timor enim est initium spiritualis vitae, ut ex dictis patet. Sed paupertas pertinet ad perfectionem vitae spiritualis, secundum illud Matth. XIX, si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus. Ergo paupertas spiritus non respondet dono timoris. Objection 1. It would seem 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 (Article 7): whereas poverty belongs to the perfection of the spiritual life, according to Matthew 19:21, "If 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 arg. 2 Praeterea, in Psalm. dicitur, confige timore tuo carnes meas, ex quo videtur quod ad timorem pertineat carnem reprimere. Sed ad repressionem carnis maxime videtur pertinere beatitudo luctus. Ergo beatitudo luctus magis respondet dono timoris quam beatitudo paupertatis. Objection 2. Further, it is written (Psalm 118:120): "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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 arg. 3 Praeterea, donum timoris respondet virtuti spei, sicut dictum est. Sed spei maxime videtur respondere beatitudo ultima, quae est, beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur, quia, ut dicitur Rom. V, gloriamur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei. Ergo illa beatitudo magis respondet dono timoris quam paupertas spiritus. Objection 3. Further, the gift of fear corresponds to the virtue of hope, as stated above (9, ad 1). Now the last beatitude 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 Romans 5:2, "we . . . 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 arg. 4 Praeterea, supra dictum est quod beatitudinibus respondent fructus. Sed nihil in fructibus invenitur respondere dono timoris. Ergo etiam neque in beatitudinibus aliquid ei respondet. Objection 4. Further, it was stated above (I-II, 70, 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in Mont., timor Dei congruit humilibus, de quibus dicitur, beati pauperes spiritu. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4): "The fear of the Lord is befitting the humble of whom it is said: Blessed are the poor in spirit."
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 co. Respondeo dicendum quod timori proprie respondet paupertas spiritus. Cum enim ad timorem filialem pertineat Deo reverentiam exhibere et ei subditum esse, id quod ex huiusmodi subiectione consequitur pertinet ad donum timoris. Ex hoc autem quod aliquis Deo se subiicit, desinit quaerere in seipso vel in aliquo alio magnificari nisi in Deo, hoc enim repugnaret perfectae subiectioni ad Deum. Unde dicitur in Psalm., hi in curribus et hi in equis, nos autem in nomine Dei nostri invocabimus. Et ideo ex hoc quod aliquis perfecte timet Deum, consequens est quod non quaerat magnificari in seipso per superbiam; neque etiam quaerat magnificari in exterioribus bonis, scilicet honoribus et divitiis; quorum utrumque pertinet ad paupertatem spiritus, secundum quod paupertas spiritus intelligi potest vel exinanitio inflati et superbi spiritus, ut Augustinus exponit; vel etiam abiectio temporalium rerum quae fit spiritu, idest propria voluntate per instinctum spiritus sancti, ut Ambrosius et Hieronymus exponunt. I answer that, Poverty of spirit properly corresponds to fear. Because, since it belongs to filial fear to show reverence 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 follows 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 (Psalm 19:8): "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. honors and riches. On 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 interpretation (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4), 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 6:20 and Jerome on Matthew 5:3.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum beatitudo sit actus virtutis perfectae, omnes beatitudines ad perfectionem spiritualis vitae pertinent. In qua quidem perfectione principium esse videtur ut tendens ad perfectam spiritualium bonorum participationem terrena bona contemnat, sicut etiam timor primum locum habet in donis. Non autem consistit perfectio in ipsa temporalium desertione, sed haec est via ad perfectionem. Timor autem filialis, cui respondet beatitudo paupertatis, etiam est cum perfectione sapientiae, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 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 whoever 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 (A7,10).
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod directius opponitur subiectioni ad Deum, quam facit timor filialis, indebita magnificatio hominis vel in seipso vel in aliis rebus quam delectatio extranea. Quae tamen opponitur timori ex consequenti, quia qui Deum reveretur et ei subiicitur, non delectatur in aliis a Deo. Sed tamen delectatio non pertinet ad rationem ardui, quam respicit timor, sicut magnificatio. Et ideo directe beatitudo paupertatis respondet timori, beatitudo autem luctus ex consequenti. Reply to Objection 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 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 character of a thing which fear regards: and so the beatitude of poverty corresponds to fear directly, and the beatitude of mourning, consequently.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod spes importat motum secundum habitudinem ad terminum ad quem tenditur, sed timor importat magis motum secundum habitudinem recessus a termino. Et ideo ultima beatitudo, quae est spiritualis perfectionis terminus, congrue respondet spei per modum obiecti ultimi, sed prima beatitudo, quae est per recessum a rebus exterioribus impedientibus divinam subiectionem, congrue respondet timori. Reply to Objection 3. Hope denotes a movement by way of a relation of tendency to a term, whereas fear implies movement 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.
IIª-IIae q. 19 a. 12 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod in fructibus illa quae pertinent ad moderatum usum vel abstinentiam a rebus temporalibus, videntur dono timoris convenire, sicut modestia, continentia et castitas. Reply to Objection 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 therefrom; such are modesty, continency and chastity.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIb/Q19&oldid=11129’