Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de duratione virtutum post hanc vitam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. | We must now consider the duration of virtues after this life, under which head there are six points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum virtutes morales maneant post hanc vitam. | (1) Whether the moral virtues remain after this life? |
| Secundo, utrum virtutes intellectuales. | (2) Whether the intellectual virtues remain? |
| Tertio, utrum fides. | (3) Whether faith remains? |
| Quarto, utrum remaneat spes. | (4) Whether hope remains? |
| Quinto, utrum aliquid fidei maneat, vel spei. | (5) Whether anything remains of faith or hope? |
| Sexto, utrum maneat caritas. | (6) Whether charity remains? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales non maneant post hanc vitam. Homines enim in statu futurae gloriae erunt similes Angelis, ut dicitur Matth. XXII. Sed ridiculum est in Angelis ponere virtutes morales, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Ergo neque in hominibus, post hanc vitam, erunt virtutes morales. | Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues doe not remain after this life. For in the future state of glory men will be like angels, according to Mt. 22:30. But it is absurd to put moral virtues in the angels [*"Whatever relates to moral action is petty, and unworthy of the gods" (Ethic. x, 8)], as stated in Ethic. x, 8. Therefore neither in man will there be moral virtues after this life. |
| Praeterea, virtutes morales perficiunt hominem in vita activa. Sed vita activa non manet post hanc vitam, dicit enim Gregorius, in VI Moral., activae vitae opera cum corpore transeunt. Ergo virtutes morales non manent post hanc vitam. | Objection 2: Further, moral virtues perfect man in the active life. But the active life does not remain after this life: for Gregory says (Moral. iv, 18): "The works of the active life pass away from the body." Therefore moral virtues do not remain after this life. |
| Praeterea, temperantia et fortitudo, quae sunt virtutes morales, sunt irrationalium partium, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic. Sed irrationales partes animae corrumpuntur, corrupto corpore, eo quod sunt actus organorum corporalium. Ergo videtur quod virtutes morales non maneant post hanc vitam. | Objection 3: Further, temperance and fortitude, which are moral virtues, are in the irrational parts of the soul, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 10). Now the irrational parts of the soul are corrupted, when the body is corrupted: since they are acts of bodily organs. Therefore it seems that the moral virtues do not remain after this life. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. I, quod iustitia perpetua est et immortalis. | On the contrary, It is written (Wis. 1:15) that "justice is perpetual and immortal." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Trin., Tullius posuit post hanc vitam quatuor virtutes cardinales non esse; sed in alia vita homines esse beatos sola cognitione naturae, in qua nihil est melius aut amabilius, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem, ea natura quae creavit omnes naturas. Ipse autem postea determinat huiusmodi quatuor virtutes in futura vita existere, tamen alio modo. | I answer that, As Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9), Cicero held that the cardinal virtues do not remain after this life; and that, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9), "in the other life men are made happy by the mere knowledge of that nature, than which nothing is better or more lovable, that Nature, to wit, which created all others." Afterwards he concludes that these four virtues remain in the future life, but after a different manner. |
| Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod in huiusmodi virtutibus aliquid est formale; et aliquid quasi materiale. Materiale quidem est in his virtutibus inclinatio quaedam partis appetitivae ad passiones vel operationes secundum modum aliquem. Sed quia iste modus determinatur a ratione, ideo formale in omnibus virtutibus est ipse ordo rationis. | In order to make this evident, we must note that in these virtues there is a formal element, and a quasi-material element. The material element in these virtues is a certain inclination of the appetitive part to the passions and operations according to a certain mode: and since this mode is fixed by reason, the formal element is precisely this order of reason. |
| Sic igitur dicendum est quod huiusmodi virtutes morales in futura vita non manent, quantum ad id quod est materiale in eis. Non enim habebunt in futura vita locum concupiscentiae et delectationes ciborum et venereorum; neque etiam timores et audaciae circa pericula mortis; neque etiam distributiones et communicationes rerum quae veniunt in usum praesentis vitae. Sed quantum ad id quod est formale, remanebunt in beatis perfectissimae post hanc vitam, inquantum ratio uniuscuiusque rectissima erit circa ea quae ad ipsum pertinent secundum statum illum; et vis appetitiva omnino movebitur secundum ordinem rationis, in his quae ad statum illum pertinent. Unde Augustinus ibidem dicit quod prudentia ibi erit sine ullo periculo erroris; fortitudo, sine molestia tolerandorum malorum; temperantia, sine repugnatione libidinum. Ut prudentiae sit nullum bonum Deo praeponere vel aequare; fortitudinis, ei firmissime cohaerere; temperantiae, nullo defectu noxio delectari. De iustitia vero manifestius est quem actum ibi habebit, scilicet esse subditum Deo, quia etiam in hac vita ad iustitiam pertinet esse subditum superiori. | Accordingly we must say that these moral virtues do not remain in the future life, as regards their material element. For in the future life there will be no concupiscences and pleasures in matters of food and sex; nor fear and daring about dangers of death; nor distributions and commutations of things employed in this present life. But, as regards the formal element, they will remain most perfect, after this life, in the Blessed, in as much as each one's reason will have most perfect rectitude in regard to things concerning him in respect of that state of life: and his appetitive power will be moved entirely according to the order of reason, in things pertaining to that same state. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 9) that "prudence will be there without any danger of error; fortitude, without the anxiety of bearing with evil; temperance, without the rebellion of the desires: so that prudence will neither prefer nor equal any good to God; fortitude will adhere to Him most steadfastly; and temperance will delight in Him Who knows no imperfection." As to justice, it is yet more evident what will be its act in that life, viz. "to be subject to God": because even in this life subjection to a superior is part of justice. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur ibi de huiusmodi virtutibus moralibus, quantum ad id quod materiale est in eis, sicut de iustitia, quantum ad commutationes et depositiones; de fortitudine, quantum ad terribilia et pericula; de temperantia, quantum ad concupiscentias pravas. | Reply to Objection 1: The Philosopher is speaking there of these moral virtues, as to their material element; thus he speaks of justice, as regards "commutations and distributions"; of fortitude, as to "matters of terror and danger"; of temperance, in respect of "lewd desires." |
| Et similiter dicendum est ad secundum. Ea enim quae sunt activae vitae, materialiter se habent ad virtutes. | The same applies to the Second Objection. For those things that concern the active life, belong to the material element of the virtues. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod status post hanc vitam est duplex, unus quidem ante resurrectionem, quando animae erunt a corporibus separatae; alius autem post resurrectionem, quando animae iterato corporibus suis unientur. In illo ergo resurrectionis statu, erunt vires irrationales in organis corporis, sicut et nunc sunt. Unde et poterit in irascibili esse fortitudo, et in concupiscibili temperantia, inquantum utraque vis perfecte erit disposita ad obediendum rationi. Sed in statu ante resurrectionem, partes irrationales non erunt actu in anima, sed solum radicaliter in essentia ipsius, ut in primo dictum est. Unde nec huiusmodi virtutes erunt in actu nisi in radice, scilicet in ratione et voluntate, in quibus sunt seminalia quaedam harum virtutum, ut dictum est. Sed iustitia, quae est in voluntate, etiam actu remanebit. Unde specialiter de ea dictum est quod est perpetua et immortalis, tum ratione subiecti, quia voluntas incorruptibilis est; tum etiam propter similitudinem actus, ut prius dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 3: There is a twofold state after this life; one before the resurrection, during which the soul will be separate from the body; the other, after the resurrection, when the souls will be reunited to their bodies. In this state of resurrection, the irrational powers will be in the bodily organs, just as they now are. Hence it will be possible for fortitude to be in the irascible, and temperance in the concupiscible part, in so far as each power will be perfectly disposed to obey the reason. But in the state preceding the resurrection, the irrational parts will not be in the soul actually, but only radically in its essence, as stated in the FP, Question [77], Article [8]. Wherefore neither will these virtues be actually, but only in their root, i.e. in the reason and will, wherein are certain nurseries of these virtues, as stated above (Question [63], Article [1]). Justice, however, will remain because it is in the will. Hence of justice it is specially said that it is "perpetual and immortal"; both by reason of its subject, since the will is incorruptible; and because its act will not change, as stated. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes intellectuales non maneant post hanc vitam. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XIII, quod scientia destruetur, et ratio est quia ex parte cognoscimus. Sed sicut cognitio scientiae est ex parte, idest imperfecta; ita etiam cognitio aliarum virtutum intellectualium, quandiu haec vita durat. Ergo omnes virtutes intellectuales post hanc vitam cessabunt. | Objection 1: It would seem that the intellectual virtues do not remain after this life. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:8,9) that "knowledge shall be destroyed," and he states the reason to be because "we know in part." Now just as the knowledge of science is in part, i.e. imperfect; so also is the knowledge of the other intellectual virtues, as long as this life lasts. Therefore all the intellectual virtues will cease after this life. |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in praedicamentis, quod scientia, cum sit habitus, est qualitas difficile mobilis, non enim de facili amittitur, nisi ex aliqua forti transmutatione vel aegritudine. Sed nulla est tanta transmutatio corporis humani sicut per mortem. Ergo scientia et aliae virtutes intellectuales non manent post hanc vitam. | Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Categor. vi) that since science is a habit, it is a quality difficult to remove: for it is not easily lost, except by reason of some great change or sickness. But no bodily change is so great as that of death. Therefore science and the other intellectual virtues do not remain after death. |
| Praeterea, virtutes intellectuales perficiunt intellectum ad bene operandum proprium actum. Sed actus intellectus non videtur esse post hanc vitam, eo quod nihil intelligit anima sine phantasmate, ut dicitur in III de anima; phantasmata autem post hanc vitam non manent, cum non sint nisi in organis corporeis. Ergo virtutes intellectuales non manent post hanc vitam. | Objection 3: Further, the intellectual virtues perfect the intellect so that it may perform its proper act well. Now there seems to be no act of the intellect after this life, since "the soul understands nothing without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, text. 30); and, after this life, the phantasms do not remain, since their only subject is an organ of the body. Therefore the intellectual virtues do not remain after this life. |
| Sed contra est quod firmior est cognitio universalium et necessariorum, quam particularium et contingentium. Sed in homine remanet post hanc vitam cognitio particularium contingentium, puta eorum quae quis fecit vel passus est; secundum illud Luc. XVI, recordare quia recepisti bona in vita tua, et Lazarus similiter mala. Ergo multo magis remanet cognitio universalium et necessariorum, quae pertinent ad scientiam et ad alias virtutes intellectuales. | On the contrary, The knowledge of what is universal and necessary is more constant than that of particular and contingent things. Now the knowledge of contingent particulars remains in man after this life; for instance, the knowledge of what one has done or suffered, according to Lk. 16:25: "Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy life-time, and likewise Lazarus evil things." Much more, therefore, does the knowledge of universal and necessary things remain, which belong to science and the other intellectual virtues. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, quidam posuerunt quod species intelligibiles non permanent in intellectu possibili nisi quandiu actu intelligit, nec est aliqua conservatio specierum, cessante consideratione actuali, nisi in viribus sensitivis, quae sunt actus corporalium organorum, scilicet in imaginativa et memorativa. Huiusmodi autem vires corrumpuntur, corrupto corpore. Et ideo secundum hoc, scientia nullo modo post hanc vitam remanebit, corpore corrupto; neque aliqua alia intellectualis virtus. | I answer that, As stated in the FP, Question [79], Article [6] some have held that the intelligible species do not remain in the passive intellect except when it actually understands; and that so long as actual consideration ceases, the species are not preserved save in the sensitive powers which are acts of bodily organs, viz. in the powers of imagination and memory. Now these powers cease when the body is corrupted: and consequently, according to this opinion, neither science nor any other intellectual virtue will remain after this life when once the body is corrupted. |
| Sed haec opinio est contra sententiam Aristotelis, qui in III de anima dicit quod intellectus possibilis est in actu, cum fit singula, sicut sciens; cum tamen sit in potentia ad considerandum in actu. Est etiam contra rationem, quia species intelligibiles recipiuntur in intellectu possibili immobiliter, secundum modum recipientis. Unde et intellectus possibilis dicitur locus specierum, quasi species intelligibiles conservans. Sed phantasmata, ad quae respiciendo homo intelligit in hac vita, applicando ad ipsa species intelligibiles, ut in primo dictum est, corrupto corpore corrumpuntur. | But this opinion is contrary to the mind of Aristotle, who states (De Anima iii, text. 8) that "the possible intellect is in act when it is identified with each thing as knowing it; and yet, even then, it is in potentiality to consider it actually." It is also contrary to reason, because intelligible species are contained by the "possible" intellect immovably, according to the mode of their container. Hence the "possible" intellect is called "the abode of the species" (De Anima iii) because it preserves the intelligible species. |
| Unde quantum ad ipsa phantasmata, quae sunt quasi materialia in virtutibus intellectualibus, virtutes intellectuales destruuntur, destructo corpore, sed quantum ad species intelligibiles, quae sunt in intellectu possibili, virtutes intellectuales manent. Species autem se habent in virtutibus intellectualibus sicut formales. Unde intellectuales virtutes manent post hanc vitam, quantum ad id quod est formale in eis, non autem quantum ad id quod est materiale, sicut et de moralibus dictum est. |
And yet the phantasms, by turning to which man understands in this life, by applying the intelligible species to them as stated in the FP, Question [84], Article [7]; FP, Question [85], Article [1], ad 5, cease as soon as the body is corrupted. Hence, so far as the phantasms are concerned, which are the quasi-material element in the intellectual virtues, these latter cease when the body is destroyed: but as regards the intelligible species, which are in the "possible" intellect, the intellectual virtues remain. Now the species are the quasi-formal element of the intellectual virtues. Therefore these remain after this life, as regards their formal element, just as we have stated concerning the moral virtues (Article [1]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum apostoli est intelligendum quantum ad id quod est materiale in scientia, et quantum ad modum intelligendi, quia scilicet neque phantasmata remanebunt, destructo corpore; neque erit usus scientiae per conversionem ad phantasmata. | Reply to Objection 1: The saying of the Apostle is to be understood as referring to the material element in science, and to the mode of understanding; because, to it, neither do the phantasms remain, when the body is destroyed; nor will science be applied by turning to the phantasms. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod per aegritudinem corrumpitur habitus scientiae quantum ad id quod est materiale in eo, scilicet quantum ad phantasmata, non autem quantum ad species intelligibiles, quae sunt in intellectu possibili. | Reply to Objection 2: Sickness destroys the habit of science as to its material element, viz. the phantasms, but not as to the intelligible species, which are in the "possible" intellect. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod anima separata post mortem habet alium modum intelligendi quam per conversionem ad phantasmata, ut in primo dictum est. Et sic scientia manet, non tamen secundum eundem modum operandi, sicut et de virtutibus moralibus dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 3: As stated in the FP, Question [89], Article [1] the separated soul has a mode of understanding, other than by turning to the phantasms. Consequently science remains, yet not as to the same mode of operation; as we have stated concerning the moral virtues (Article [1]). |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides maneat post hanc vitam. Nobilior enim est fides quam scientia. Sed scientia manet post hanc vitam, ut dictum est. Ergo et fides. |
Objection 1: It would seem that faith remains after this life. Because faith is more excellent than science. Now science remains after this life, as stated above (Article [2]). Therefore faith remains also. |
| Praeterea, I ad Cor. III, dicitur, fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus, idest fides Christi Iesu. Sed sublato fundamento, non remanet id quod superaedificatur. Ergo, si fides non remanet post hanc vitam, nulla alia virtus remaneret. |
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 3:11): "Other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus," i.e. faith in Jesus Christ. Now if the foundation is removed, that which is built upon it remains no more. Therefore, if faith remains not after this life, no other virtue remains. |
| Praeterea, cognitio fidei et cognitio gloriae differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum. Sed cognitio imperfecta potest esse simul cum cognitione perfecta, sicut in Angelo simul potest esse cognitio vespertina cum cognitione matutina; et aliquis homo potest simul habere de eadem conclusione scientiam per syllogismum demonstrativum, et opinionem per syllogismum dialecticum. Ergo etiam fides simul esse potest, post hanc vitam, cum cognitione gloriae, | Objection 3: Further, the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of glory differ as perfect from imperfect. Now imperfect knowledge is compatible with perfect knowledge: thus in an angel there can be "evening" and "morning" knowledge [*Cf. FP, Question [58], Article [6]]; and a man can have science through a demonstrative syllogism, together with opinion through a probable syllogism, about one same conclusion. Therefore after this life faith also is compatible with the knowledge of glory. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. V, quandiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino, per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem. Sed illi qui sunt in gloria, non peregrinantur a domino, sed sunt ei praesentes. Ergo fides non manet post hanc vitam in gloria. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6,7): "While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith and not by sight." But those who are in glory are not absent from the Lord, but present to Him. Therefore after this life faith does not remain in the life of glory. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod oppositio est per se et propria causa quod unum excludatur ab alio, inquantum scilicet in omnibus oppositis includitur oppositio affirmationis et negationis. Invenitur autem in quibusdam oppositio secundum contrarias formas, sicut in coloribus album et nigrum. In quibusdam autem, secundum perfectum et imperfectum, unde in alterationibus magis et minus accipiuntur ut contraria, ut cum de minus calido fit magis calidum, ut dicitur in V Physic. Et quia perfectum et imperfectum opponuntur, impossibile est quod simul, secundum idem, sit perfectio et imperfectio. | I answer that, Opposition is of itself the proper cause of one thing being excluded from another, in so far, to wit, as wherever two things are opposite to one another, we find opposition of affirmation and negation. Now in some things we find opposition in respect of contrary forms; thus in colors we find white and black. In others we find opposition in respect of perfection and imperfection: wherefore in alterations, more and less are considered to be contraries, as when a thing from being less hot is made more hot (Phys. v, text. 19). And since perfect and imperfect are opposite to one another, it is impossible for perfection and imperfection to affect the same thing at the same time. |
| Est autem considerandum quod imperfectio quidem quandoque est de ratione rei, et pertinet ad speciem ipsius, sicut defectus rationis pertinet ad rationem speciei equi vel bovis. Et quia unum et idem numero manens non potest transferri de una specie in aliam, inde est quod, tali imperfectione sublata, tollitur species rei, sicut iam non esset bos vel equus, si esset rationalis. Quandoque vero imperfectio non pertinet ad rationem speciei, sed accidit individuo secundum aliquid aliud, sicut alicui homini quandoque accidit defectus rationis, inquantum impeditur in eo rationis usus, propter somnum vel ebrietatem vel aliquid huiusmodi. Patet autem quod, tali imperfectione remota, nihilominus substantia rei manet. | Now we must take note that sometimes imperfection belongs to a thing's very nature, and belongs to its species: even as lack of reason belongs to the very specific nature of a horse and an ox. And since a thing, so long as it remains the same identically, cannot pass from one species to another, it follows that if such an imperfection be removed, the species of that thing is changed: even as it would no longer be an ox or a horse, were it to be rational. Sometimes, however, the imperfection does not belong to the specific nature, but is accidental to the individual by reason of something else; even as sometimes lack of reason is accidental to a man, because he is asleep, or because he is drunk, or for some like reason; and it is evident, that if such an imperfection be removed, the thing remains substantially. |
| Manifestum est autem quod imperfectio cognitionis est de ratione fidei. Ponitur enim in eius definitione, fides enim est substantia sperandarum rerum, argumentum non apparentium, ut dicitur ad Heb. XI. Et Augustinus dicit, quid est fides? Credere quod non vides. Quod autem cognitio sit sine apparitione vel visione, hoc ad imperfectionem cognitionis pertinet. Et sic imperfectio cognitionis est de ratione fidei. Unde manifestum est quod fides non potest esse perfecta cognitio, eadem numero manens. |
Now it is clear that imperfect knowledge belongs to the very nature of faith: for it is included in its definition; faith being defined as "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Heb. 11:1). Wherefore Augustine says (Tract. xl in Joan.): "Where is faith? Believing without seeing." But it is an imperfect knowledge that is of things unapparent or unseen. Consequently imperfect knowledge belongs to the very nature of faith: therefore it is clear that the knowledge of faith cannot be perfect and remain identically the same. |
| Sed ulterius considerandum est utrum simul possit esse cum cognitione perfecta, nihil enim prohibet aliquam cognitionem imperfectam simul esse aliquando cum cognitione perfecta. Est igitur considerandum quod cognitio potest esse imperfecta tripliciter, uno modo, ex parte obiecti cognoscibilis; alio modo, ex parte medii; tertio modo, ex parte subiecti. Ex parte quidem obiecti cognoscibilis, differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum cognitio matutina et vespertina in Angelis, nam cognitio matutina est de rebus secundum quod habent esse in verbo; cognitio autem vespertina est de eis secundum quod habent esse in propria natura, quod est imperfectum respectu primi esse. Ex parte vero medii, differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum cognitio quae est de aliqua conclusione per medium demonstrativum, et per medium probabile. Ex parte vero subiecti differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum opinio, fides et scientia. Nam de ratione opinionis est quod accipiatur unum cum formidine alterius oppositi, unde non habet firmam inhaesionem. De ratione vero scientiae est quod habeat firmam inhaesionem cum visione intellectiva, habet enim certitudinem procedentem ex intellectu principiorum. Fides autem medio modo se habet, excedit enim opinionem, in hoc quod habet firmam inhaesionem; deficit vero a scientia, in hoc quod non habet visionem. | But we must also consider whether it is compatible with perfect knowledge: for there is nothing to prevent some kind of imperfect knowledge from being sometimes with perfect knowledge. Accordingly we must observe that knowledge can be imperfect in three ways: first, on the part of the knowable object; secondly, on the part of the medium; thirdly, on the part of the subject. The difference of perfect and imperfect knowledge on the part of the knowable object is seen in the "morning" and "evening" knowledge of the angels: for the "morning" knowledge is about things according to the being which they have in the Word, while the "evening" knowledge is about things according as they have being in their own natures, which being is imperfect in comparison with the First Being. On the part of the medium, perfect and imperfect knowledge are exemplified in the knowledge of a conclusion through a demonstrative medium, and through a probable medium. On the part of the subject the difference of perfect and imperfect knowledge applies to opinion, faith, and science. For it is essential to opinion that we assent to one of two opposite assertions with fear of the other, so that our adhesion is not firm: to science it is essential to have firm adhesion with intellectual vision, for science possesses certitude which results from the understanding of principles: while faith holds a middle place, for it surpasses opinion in so far as its adhesion is firm, but falls short of science in so far as it lacks vision. |
| Manifestum est autem quod perfectum et imperfectum non possunt simul esse secundum idem, sed ea quae differunt secundum perfectum et imperfectum, secundum aliquid idem possunt simul esse in aliquo alio eodem. Sic igitur cognitio perfecta et imperfecta ex parte obiecti, nullo modo possunt esse de eodem obiecto. Possunt tamen convenire in eodem medio, et in eodem subiecto, nihil enim prohibet quod unus homo simul et semel per unum et idem medium habeat cognitionem de duobus, quorum unum est perfectum et aliud imperfectum, sicut de sanitate et aegritudine, et bono et malo. Similiter etiam impossibile est quod cognitio perfecta et imperfecta ex parte medii, conveniant in uno medio. Sed nihil prohibet quin conveniant in uno obiecto, et in uno subiecto, potest enim unus homo cognoscere eandem conclusionem per medium probabile, et demonstrativum. Et est similiter impossibile quod cognitio perfecta et imperfecta ex parte subiecti, sint simul in eodem subiecto. Fides autem in sui ratione habet imperfectionem quae est ex parte subiecti, ut scilicet credens non videat id quod credit, beatitudo autem de sui ratione habet perfectionem ex parte subiecti, ut scilicet beatus videat id quo beatificatur, ut supra dictum est. Unde manifestum est quod impossibile est quod fides maneat simul cum beatitudine in eodem subiecto. |
Now it is evident that a thing cannot be perfect and imperfect in the same respect; yet the things which differ as perfect and imperfect can be together in the same respect in one and the same other thing. Accordingly, knowledge which is perfect on the part of the object is quite incompatible with imperfect knowledge about the same object; but they are compatible with one another in respect of the same medium or the same subject: for nothing hinders a man from having at one and the same time, through one and the same medium, perfect and imperfect knowledge about two things, one perfect, the other imperfect, e.g. about health and sickness, good and evil. In like manner knowledge that is perfect on the part of the medium is incompatible with imperfect knowledge through one and the same medium: but nothing hinders them being about the same subject or in the same subject: for one man can know the same conclusions through a probable and through a demonstrative medium. Again, knowledge that is perfect on the part of the subject is incompatible with imperfect knowledge in the same subject. Now faith, of its very nature, contains an imperfection on the part of the subject, viz. that the believer sees not what he believes: whereas bliss, of its very nature, implies perfection on the part of the subject, viz. that the Blessed see that which makes them happy, as stated above (Question [3], Article [8]). Hence it is manifest that faith and bliss are incompatible in one and the same subject. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fides est nobilior quam scientia, ex parte obiecti, quia eius obiectum est veritas prima. Sed scientia habet perfectiorem modum cognoscendi, qui non repugnat perfectioni beatitudinis, scilicet visioni, sicut repugnat ei modus fidei. | Reply to Objection 1: Faith is more excellent than science, on the part of the object, because its object is the First Truth. Yet science has a more perfect mode of knowing its object, which is not incompatible with vision which is the perfection of happiness, as the mode of faith is incompatible. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod fides est fundamentum quantum ad id quod habet de cognitione. Et ideo quando perficietur cognitio, erit perfectius fundamentum. | Reply to Objection 2: Faith is the foundation in as much as it is knowledge: consequently when this knowledge is perfected, the foundation will be perfected also. |
| Ad tertium patet solutio ex his quae dicta sunt. | The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes maneat post mortem in statu gloriae. Spes enim nobiliori modo perficit appetitum humanum quam virtutes morales. Sed virtutes morales manent post hanc vitam, ut patet per Augustinum, in XIV de Trin. Ergo multo magis spes. | Objection 1: It would seem that hope remains after death, in the state of glory. Because hope perfects the human appetite in a more excellent manner than the moral virtues. But the moral virtues remain after this life, as Augustine clearly states (De Trin. xiv, 9). Much more then does hope remain. |
| Praeterea, spei opponitur timor. Sed timor manet post hanc vitam, et in beatis quidem timor filialis, qui manet in saeculum; et in damnatis timor poenarum. Ergo spes, pari ratione, potest permanere. | Objection 2: Further, fear is opposed to hope. But fear remains after this life: in the Blessed, filial fear, which abides for ever—in the lost, the fear of punishment. Therefore, in a like manner, hope can remain. |
| Praeterea, sicut spes est futuri boni, ita et desiderium. Sed in beatis est desiderium futuri boni, et quantum ad gloriam corporis, quam animae beatorum desiderant, ut dicit Augustinus, XII super Gen. ad Litt.; et etiam quantum ad gloriam animae, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, qui edunt me, adhuc esurient, et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient; et I Petr. I, dicitur, in quem desiderant Angeli prospicere. Ergo videtur quod possit esse spes post hanc vitam in beatis. | Objection 3: Further, just as hope is of future good, so is desire. Now in the Blessed there is desire for future good; both for the glory of the body, which the souls of the Blessed desire, as Augustine declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35); and for the glory of the soul, according to Ecclus. 24:29: "They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that drink me, shall yet thirst," and 1 Pt. 1:12: "On Whom the angels desire to look." Therefore it seems that there can be hope in the Blessed after this life is past. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VIII, quod videt quis, quid sperat? Sed beati vident id quod est obiectum spei, scilicet Deum. Ergo non sperant. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 8:24): "What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" But the Blessed see that which is the object of hope, viz. God. Therefore they do not hope. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, id quod de ratione sui importat imperfectionem subiecti, non potest simul stare cum subiecto opposita perfectione perfecto. Sicut patet quod motus in ratione sui importat imperfectionem subiecti, est enim actus existentis in potentia, inquantum huiusmodi, unde quando illa potentia reducitur ad actum, iam cessat motus; non enim adhuc albatur, postquam iam aliquid factum est album. Spes autem importat motum quendam in id quod non habetur; ut patet ex his quae supra de passione spei diximus. Et ideo quando habebitur id quod speratur, scilicet divina fruitio, iam spes esse non poterit. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]), that which, in its very nature, implies imperfection of its subject, is incompatible with the opposite perfection in that subject. Thus it is evident that movement of its very nature implies imperfection of its subject, since it is "the act of that which is in potentiality as such" (Phys. iii): so that as soon as this potentiality is brought into act, the movement ceases; for a thing does not continue to become white, when once it is made white. Now hope denotes a movement towards that which is not possessed, as is clear from what we have said above about the passion of hope (Question [40], Articles [1],2). Therefore when we possess that which we hope for, viz. the enjoyment of God, it will no longer be possible to have hope. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod spes est nobilior virtutibus moralibus quantum ad obiectum, quod est Deus. Sed actus virtutum moralium non repugnant perfectioni beatitudinis, sicut actus spei; nisi forte ratione materiae, secundum quam non manent. Non enim virtus moralis perficit appetitum solum in id quod nondum habetur; sed etiam circa id quod praesentialiter habetur. | Reply to Objection 1: Hope surpasses the moral virtues as to its object, which is God. But the acts of the moral virtues are not incompatible with the perfection of happiness, as the act of hope is; except perhaps, as regards their matter, in respect of which they do not remain. For moral virtue perfects the appetite, not only in respect of what is not yet possessed, but also as regards something which is in our actual possession. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod timor est duplex, servilis et filialis, ut infra dicetur. Servilis quidem est timor poenae, qui non poterit esse in gloria, nulla possibilitate ad poenam remanente. Timor vero filialis habet duos actus, scilicet revereri Deum, et quantum ad hunc actum manet; et timere separationem ab ipso, et quantum ad hunc actum non manet. Separari enim a Deo habet rationem mali, nullum autem malum ibi timebitur, secundum illud Proverb. I, abundantia perfruetur, malorum timore sublato. Timor autem opponitur spei oppositione boni et mali, ut supra dictum est, et ideo timor qui remanet in gloria, non opponitur spei. In damnatis autem magis potest esse timor poenae, quam in beatis spes gloriae. Quia in damnatis erit successio poenarum, et sic remanet ibi ratio futuri, quod est obiectum timoris, sed gloria sanctorum est absque successione, secundum quandam aeternitatis participationem, in qua non est praeteritum et futurum, sed solum praesens. Et tamen nec etiam in damnatis est proprie timor. Nam sicut supra dictum est, timor nunquam est sine aliqua spe evasionis, quae omnino in damnatis non erit. Unde nec timor; nisi communiter loquendo, secundum quod quaelibet expectatio mali futuri dicitur timor. |
Reply to Objection 2: Fear is twofold, servile and filial, as we shall state further on (SS, Question [19], Article [2]). Servile fear regards punishment, and will be impossible in the life of glory, since there will no longer be possibility of being punished. Filial fear has two acts: one is an act of reverence to God, and with regard to this act, it remains: the other is an act of fear lest we be separated from God, and as regards this act, it does not remain. Because separation from God is in the nature of an evil: and no evil will be feared there, according to Prov. 1:33: "He... shall enjoy abundance without fear of evils." Now fear is opposed to hope by opposition of good and evil, as stated above (Question [23], Article [2]; Question [40], Article [1]), and therefore the fear which will remain in glory is not opposed to hope. In the lost there can be fear of punishment, rather than hope of glory in the Blessed. Because in the lost there will be a succession of punishments, so that the notion of something future remains there, which is the object of fear: but the glory of the saints has no succession, by reason of its being a kind of participation of eternity, wherein there is neither past nor future, but only the present. And yet, properly speaking, neither in the lost is there fear. For, as stated above (Question [42], Article [2]), fear is never without some hope of escape: and the lost have no such hope. Consequently neither will there be fear in them; except speaking in a general way, in so far as any expectation of future evil is called fear. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quantum ad gloriam animae, non potest esse in beatis desiderium, secundum quod respicit futurum, ratione iam dicta. Dicitur autem ibi esse esuries et sitis, per remotionem fastidii, et eadem ratione dicitur esse desiderium in Angelis. Respectu autem gloriae corporis, in animabus sanctorum potest quidem esse desiderium, non tamen spes, proprie loquendo, neque secundum quod spes est virtus theologica, sic enim eius obiectum est Deus, non autem aliquod bonum creatum; neque secundum quod communiter sumitur. Quia obiectum spei est arduum, ut supra dictum est, bonum autem cuius iam inevitabilem causam habemus, non comparatur ad nos in ratione ardui. Unde non proprie dicitur aliquis qui habet argentum, sperare se habiturum aliquid quod statim in potestate eius est ut emat. Et similiter illi qui habent gloriam animae, non proprie dicuntur sperare gloriam corporis; sed solum desiderare. |
Reply to Objection 3: As to the glory of the soul, there can be no desire in the Blessed, in so far as desire looks for something future, for the reason already given (ad 2). Yet hunger and thirst are said to be in them because they never weary, and for the same reason desire is said to be in the angels. With regard to the glory of the body, there can be desire in the souls of the saints, but not hope, properly speaking; neither as a theological virtue, for thus its object is God, and not a created good; nor in its general signification. Because the object of hope is something difficult, as stated above (Question [40], Article [1]): while a good whose unerring cause we already possess, is not compared to us as something difficult. Hence he that has money is not, properly speaking, said to hope for what he can buy at once. In like manner those who have the glory of the soul are not, properly speaking, said to hope for the glory of the body, but only to desire it. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquid fidei vel spei remaneat in gloria. Remoto enim eo quod est proprium, remanet id quod est commune, sicut dicitur in libro de causis, quod, remoto rationali, remanet vivum; et remoto vivo, remanet ens. Sed in fide est aliquid quod habet commune cum beatitudine, scilicet ipsa cognitio, aliquid autem quod est sibi proprium, scilicet aenigma; est enim fides cognitio aenigmatica. Ergo, remoto aenigmate fidei, adhuc remanet ipsa cognitio fidei. | Objection 1: It would seem that something of faith and hope remains in glory. For when that which is proper to a thing is removed, there remains what is common; thus it is stated in De Causis that "if you take away rational, there remains living, and when you remove living, there remains being." Now in faith there is something that it has in common with beatitude, viz. knowledge: and there is something proper to it, viz. darkness, for faith is knowledge in a dark manner. Therefore, the darkness of faith removed, the knowledge of faith still remains. |
| Praeterea, fides est quoddam spirituale lumen animae, secundum illud Ephes. I, illuminatos oculos cordis vestri in agnitionem Dei; sed hoc lumen est imperfectum respectu luminis gloriae, de quo dicitur in Psalmo XXXV, in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Lumen autem imperfectum remanet, superveniente lumine perfecto, non enim candela extinguitur, claritate solis superveniente. Ergo videtur quod ipsum lumen fidei maneat cum lumine gloriae. |
Objection 2: Further, faith is a spiritual light of the soul, according to Eph. 1:17,18: "The eyes of your heart enlightened... in the knowledge of God"; yet this light is imperfect in comparison with the light of glory, of which it is written (Ps. 35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light." Now an imperfect light remains when a perfect light supervenes: for a candle is not extinguished when the sun's rays appear. Therefore it seems that the light of faith itself remains with the light of glory. |
| Praeterea, substantia habitus non tollitur per hoc quod subtrahitur materia, potest enim homo habitum liberalitatis retinere, etiam amissa pecunia; sed actum habere non potest. Obiectum autem fidei est veritas prima non visa. Ergo, hoc remoto per hoc quod videtur veritas prima, adhuc potest remanere ipse habitus fidei. | Objection 3: Further, the substance of a habit does not cease through the withdrawal of its matter: for a man may retain the habit of liberality, though he have lost his money: yet he cannot exercise the act. Now the object of faith is the First Truth as unseen. Therefore when this ceases through being seen, the habit of faith can still remain. |
| Sed contra est quod fides est quidam habitus simplex. Simplex autem vel totum tollitur, vel totum manet. Cum igitur fides non totaliter maneat, sed evacuetur, ut dictum est; videtur quod totaliter tollatur. |
On the contrary, Faith is a simple habit. Now a simple thing is either withdrawn entirely, or remains entirely. Since therefore faith does not remain entirely, but is taken away as stated above (Article [3]), it seems that it is withdrawn entirely. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod spes totaliter tollitur, fides autem partim tollitur, scilicet quantum ad aenigma, et partim manet, scilicet quantum ad substantiam cognitionis. Quod quidem si sic intelligatur quod maneat non idem numero, sed idem genere, verissime dictum est, fides enim cum visione patriae convenit in genere, quod est cognitio. Spes autem non convenit cum beatitudine in genere, comparatur enim spes ad beatitudinis fruitionem, sicut motus ad quietem in termino. | I answer that, Some have held that hope is taken away entirely: but that faith is taken away in part, viz. as to its obscurity, and remains in part, viz. as to the substance of its knowledge. And if this be understood to mean that it remains the same, not identically but generically, it is absolutely true; since faith is of the same genus, viz. knowledge, as the beatific vision. On the other hand, hope is not of the same genus as heavenly bliss: because it is compared to the enjoyment of bliss, as movement is to rest in the term of movement. |
| Si autem intelligatur quod eadem numero cognitio quae est fidei, maneat in patria; hoc est omnino impossibile. Non enim, remota differentia alicuius speciei, remanet substantia generis eadem numero, sicut, remota differentia constitutiva albedinis, non remanet eadem substantia coloris numero, ut sic idem numero color sit quandoque albedo, quandoque vero nigredo. Non enim comparatur genus ad differentiam sicut materia ad formam, ut remaneat substantia generis eadem numero, differentia remota; sicut remanet eadem numero substantia materiae, remota forma. Genus enim et differentia non sunt partes speciei, alioquin non praedicarentur de specie. Sed sicut species significat totum, idest compositum ex materia et forma in rebus materialibus, ita differentia significat totum, et similiter genus, sed genus denominat totum ab eo quod est sicut materia; differentia vero ab eo quod est sicut forma; species vero ab utroque. Sicut in homine sensitiva natura materialiter se habet ad intellectivam, animal autem dicitur quod habet naturam sensitivam; rationale quod habet intellectivam; homo vero quod habet utrumque. Et sic idem totum significatur per haec tria, sed non ab eodem. | But if it be understood to mean that in heaven the knowledge of faith remains identically the same, this is absolutely impossible. Because when you remove a specific difference, the substance of the genus does not remain identically the same: thus if you remove the difference constituting whiteness, the substance of color does not remain identically the same, as though the identical color were at one time whiteness, and, at another, blackness. The reason is that genus is not related to difference as matter to form, so that the substance of the genus remains identically the same, when the difference is removed, as the substance of matter remains identically the same, when the form is changed: for genus and difference are not the parts of a species, else they would not be predicated of the species. But even as the species denotes the whole, i.e. the compound of matter and form in material things, so does the difference, and likewise the genus; the genus denotes the whole by signifying that which is material; the difference, by signifying that which is formal; the species, by signifying both. Thus, in man, the sensitive nature is as matter to the intellectual nature, and animal is predicated of that which has a sensitive nature, rational of that which has an intellectual nature, and man of that which has both. So that the one same whole is denoted by these three, but not under the same aspect. |
| Unde patet quod, cum differentia non sit nisi designativa generis, remota differentia, non potest substantia generis eadem remanere, non enim remanet eadem animalitas, si sit alia anima constituens animal. Unde non potest esse quod eadem numero cognitio, quae prius fuit aenigmatica, postea fiat visio aperta. Et sic patet quod nihil idem numero vel specie quod est in fide, remanet in patria; sed solum idem genere. | It is therefore evident that, since the signification of the difference is confined to the genus if the difference be removed, the substance of the genus cannot remain the same: for the same animal nature does not remain, if another kind of soul constitute the animal. Hence it is impossible for the identical knowledge, which was previously obscure, to become clear vision. It is therefore evident that, in heaven, nothing remains of faith, either identically or specifically the same, but only generically. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, remoto rationali, non remanet vivum idem numero, sed idem genere, ut ex dictis patet. | Reply to Objection 1: If "rational" be withdrawn, the remaining "living" thing is the same, not identically, but generically, as stated. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod imperfectio luminis candelae non opponitur perfectioni solaris luminis, quia non respiciunt idem subiectum. Sed imperfectio fidei et perfectio gloriae opponuntur ad invicem, et respiciunt idem subiectum. Unde non possunt esse simul, sicut nec claritas aeris cum obscuritate eius. | Reply to Objection 2: The imperfection of candlelight is not opposed to the perfection of sunlight, since they do not regard the same subject: whereas the imperfection of faith and the perfection of glory are opposed to one another and regard the same subject. Consequently they are incompatible with one another, just as light and darkness in the air. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui amittit pecuniam, non amittit possibilitatem habendi pecuniam, et ideo convenienter remanet habitus liberalitatis. Sed in statu gloriae non solum actu tollitur obiectum fidei, quod est non visum; sed etiam secundum possibilitatem, propter beatitudinis stabilitatem. Et ideo frustra talis habitus remaneret. | Reply to Objection 3: He that loses his money does not therefore lose the possibility of having money, and therefore it is reasonable for the habit of liberality to remain. But in the state of glory not only is the object of faith, which is the unseen, removed actually, but even its possibility, by reason of the unchangeableness of heavenly bliss: and so such a habit would remain to no purpose. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 67 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non maneat post hanc vitam in gloria. Quia, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est, idest quod est imperfectum. Sed caritas viae est imperfecta. Ergo evacuabitur, adveniente perfectione gloriae. | Objection 1: It would seem that charity does not remain after this life, in glory. Because according to 1 Cor. 13:10, "when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part," i.e. that which is imperfect, "shall be done away." Now the charity of the wayfarer is imperfect. Therefore it will be done away when the perfection of glory is attained. |
| Praeterea, habitus et actus distinguuntur secundum obiecta. Sed obiectum amoris est bonum apprehensum. Cum ergo alia sit apprehensio praesentis vitae, et alia apprehensio futurae vitae; videtur quod non maneat eadem caritas utrobique. | Objection 2: Further, habits and acts are differentiated by their objects. But the object of love is good apprehended. Since therefore the apprehension of the present life differs from the apprehension of the life to come, it seems that charity is not the same in both cases. |
| Praeterea, eorum quae sunt unius rationis, imperfectum potest venire ad aequalitatem perfectionis, per continuum augmentum. Sed caritas viae nunquam potest pervenire ad aequalitatem caritatis patriae, quantumcumque augeatur. Ergo videtur quod caritas viae non remaneat in patria. | Objection 3: Further, things of the same kind can advance from imperfection to perfection by continuous increase. But the charity of the wayfarer can never attain to equality with the charity of heaven, however much it be increased. Therefore it seems that the charity of the wayfarer does not remain in heaven. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, caritas nunquam excidit. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:8): "Charity never falleth away." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quando imperfectio alicuius rei non est de ratione speciei ipsius, nihil prohibet idem numero quod prius fuit imperfectum, postea perfectum esse, sicut homo per augmentum perficitur, et albedo per intensionem. Caritas autem est amor; de cuius ratione non est aliqua imperfectio, potest enim esse et habiti et non habiti, et visi et non visi. Unde caritas non evacuatur per gloriae perfectionem, sed eadem numero manet. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]), when the imperfection of a thing does not belong to its specific nature, there is nothing to hinder the identical thing passing from imperfection to perfection, even as man is perfected by growth, and whiteness by intensity. Now charity is love, the nature of which does not include imperfection, since it may relate to an object either possessed or not possessed, either seen or not seen. Therefore charity is not done away by the perfection of glory, but remains identically the same. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod imperfectio caritatis per accidens se habet ad ipsam, quia non est de ratione amoris imperfectio. Remoto autem eo quod est per accidens, nihilominus remanet substantia rei. Unde, evacuata imperfectione caritatis, non evacuatur ipsa caritas. | Reply to Objection 1: The imperfection of charity is accidental to it; because imperfection is not included in the nature of love. Now although that which is accidental to a thing be withdrawn, the substance remains. Hence the imperfection of charity being done away, charity itself is not done away. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod caritas non habet pro obiecto ipsam cognitionem, sic enim non esset eadem in via et in patria. Sed habet pro obiecto ipsam rem cognitam, quae est eadem, scilicet ipsum Deum. | Reply to Objection 2: The object of charity is not knowledge itself; if it were, the charity of the wayfarer would not be the same as the charity of heaven: its object is the thing known, which remains the same, viz. God Himself. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod caritas viae per augmentum non potest pervenire ad aequalitatem caritatis patriae, propter differentiam quae est ex parte causae, visio enim est quaedam causa amoris, ut dicitur in IX Ethic. Deus autem quanto perfectius cognoscitur, tanto perfectius amatur. | Reply to Objection 3: The reason why charity of the wayfarer cannot attain to the perfection of the charity of heaven, is a difference on the part of the cause: for vision is a cause of love, as stated in Ethic. ix, 5: and the more perfectly we know God, the more perfectly we love Him. |