Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 140 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de praeceptis fortitudinis. | We must next consider the precepts of fortitude: |
| Et primo, de praeceptis ipsius fortitudinis. | (1) The precepts of fortitude itself; |
| Secundo, de praeceptis partium eius. | (2) The precepts of its parts. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 140 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non convenienter in lege divina praecepta fortitudinis tradantur. Lex enim nova perfectior est veteri lege. Sed in veteri lege ponuntur aliqua praecepta fortitudinis, ut patet Deut. XX. Ergo et in nova lege aliqua praecepta fortitudinis danda fuerunt. |
Objection 1: It seems that the precepts of fortitude are not suitably given in the Divine Law. For the New Law is more perfect than the Old Law. Yet the Old Law contains precepts of fortitude (Dt. 20). Therefore precepts of fortitude should have been given in the New Law also. |
| Praeterea, praecepta affirmativa videntur esse potiora praeceptis negativis, quia affirmativa includunt negativa, sed non e converso. Inconvenienter igitur in lege divina ponuntur praecepta fortitudinis solum negativa, timorem prohibentia. | Objection 2: Further, affirmative precepts are of greater import than negative precepts, since the affirmative include the negative, but not vice versa. Therefore it is unsuitable for the Divine Law to contain none but negative precepts in prohibition of fear. |
| Praeterea, fortitudo est una de virtutibus principalibus, ut supra habitum est. Sed praecepta ordinantur ad virtutes sicut ad fines, unde debent eis proportionari. Ergo et praecepta fortitudinis debuerunt poni inter praecepta Decalogi, quae sunt principalia legis praecepta. |
Objection 3: Further, fortitude is one of the principal virtues, as stated above (Question [123], Article [2]; FS, Question [61], Article [2]). Now the precepts are directed to the virtues as to their end: wherefore they should be proportionate to them. Therefore the precepts of fortitude should have been placed among the precepts of the decalogue, which are the chief precepts of the Law. |
| Sed contrarium apparet ex traditione sacrae Scripturae. | On the contrary, stands Holy Writ which contains these precepts. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod praecepta legis ordinantur ad intentionem legislatoris. Unde secundum diversos fines quos intendit legislator, oportet diversimode praecepta legis institui. Unde et in rebus humanis alia sunt praecepta democratica, alia regia, alia tyrannica. Finis autem legis divinae est ut homo inhaereat Deo. Et ideo praecepta legis divinae, tam de fortitudine quam de aliis virtutibus, dantur secundum quod convenit ordinationi mentis in Deum. Et propter hoc Deut. XX dicitur, non formidetis eos, quia dominus Deus vester in medio vestri est, et pro vobis contra adversarios dimicabit. |
I answer that, Precepts of law are directed to the end intended by the lawgiver. Wherefore precepts of law must needs be framed in various ways according to the various ends intended by lawgivers, so that even in human affairs there are laws of democracies, others of kingdoms, and others again of tyrannical governments. Now the end of the Divine Law is that man may adhere to God: wherefore the Divine Law contains precepts both of fortitude and of the other virtues, with a view to directing the mind to God. For this reason it is written (Dt. 20:3,4): "Fear ye them not: because the Lord your God is in the midst of you, and will fight for you against your enemies." |
| Leges autem humanae ordinantur ad aliqua mundana bona. Secundum quorum conditionem praecepta fortitudinis in humanis legibus inveniuntur. | As to human laws, they are directed to certain earthly goods, and among them we find precepts of fortitude according to the requirements of those goods. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vetus testamentum habebat temporalia promissa, novum autem spiritualia et aeterna, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Faust. Et ideo necessarium fuit ut in veteri lege populus instrueretur qualiter pugnare deberet etiam corporaliter, pro terrena possessione acquirenda. In novo autem instruendi fuerunt homines qualiter, spiritualiter certando, ad possessionem vitae aeternae pervenirent, secundum illud Matth. XI, regnum caelorum vim patitur, et violenti diripiunt illud. Unde et Petrus praecipit, I Pet. ult., adversarius vester Diabolus tanquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret, cui resistite fortes in fide; et Iac. IV, resistite Diabolo, et fugiet a vobis. Quia tamen homines ad spiritualia bona tendentes ab eis retrahi possent per corporalia pericula, fuerunt etiam in lege divina danda fortitudinis praecepta ad sustinenda fortiter temporalia mala, secundum illud Matth. X, nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus. |
Reply to Objection 1: The Old Testament contained temporal promises, while the promises of the New Testament are spiritual and eternal, according to Augustine (Contra Faust. iv). Hence in the Old Law there was need for the people to be taught how to fight, even in a bodily contest, in order to obtain an earthly possession. But in the New Testament men were to be taught how to come to the possession of eternal life by fighting spiritually, according to Mt. 11:12, "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away." Hence Peter commands (1 Pt. 5:8,9): "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist ye, strong in faith," as also James 4:7: "Resist the devil, and he will fly from you." Since, however, men while tending to spiritual goods may be withdrawn from them by corporal dangers, precepts of fortitude had to be given even in the New Law, that they might bravely endure temporal evils, according to Mt. 10:28, "Fear ye not them that kill the body." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod lex suis praeceptis habet communem instructionem. Ea vero quae sunt agenda in periculis non possunt ad aliquid commune reduci, sicut ea quae sunt vitanda. Et ideo praecepta fortitudinis magis dantur negative quam affirmative. | Reply to Objection 2: The law gives general directions in its precepts. But the things that have to be done in cases of danger are not, like the things to be avoided, reducible to some common thing. Hence the precepts of fortitude are negative rather than affirmative. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, praecepta Decalogi ponuntur in lege sicut prima principia, quae statim debent esse omnibus nota. Et ideo praecepta Decalogi debuerunt esse principaliter de actibus iustitiae, in quibus manifeste invenitur ratio debiti, non autem de actibus fortitudinis, quia non ita manifeste videtur esse debitum quod aliquis mortis pericula non reformidet. |
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [122], Article [1]), the precepts of the decalogue are placed in the Law, as first principles, which need to be known to all from the outset. Wherefore the precepts of the decalogue had to be chiefly about those acts of justice in which the notion of duty is manifest, and not about acts of fortitude, because it is not so evident that it is a duty for a person not to fear dangers of death. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 140 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter tradantur praecepta in lege divina de partibus fortitudinis. Sicut enim patientia et perseverantia sunt partes fortitudinis, ita etiam magnificentia et magnanimitas sive fiducia, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed de patientia inveniuntur aliqua praecepta tradita in lege divina, similiter autem et de perseverantia. Ergo, pari ratione, de magnificentia et magnanimitate aliqua praecepta tradi debuerunt. |
Objection 1: It seems that the precept of the parts of fortitude are unsuitably given in the Divine Law. For just as patience and perseverance are parts of fortitude, so also are magnificence, magnanimity, and confidence, as stated above (Question [128]). Now we find precepts of patience in the Divine Law, as also of perseverance. Therefore there should also have been precepts of magnificence and magnanimity. |
| Praeterea, patientia est virtus maxime necessaria, cum sit custos aliarum virtutum, ut Gregorius dicit. Sed de aliis virtutibus dantur praecepta absolute. Non ergo de patientia fuerunt danda praecepta quae intelligantur solum secundum praeparationem animi, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro Serm. Dom. in monte. | Objection 2: Further, patience is a very necessary virtue, since it is the guardian of the other virtues, as Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxxv). Now the other virtues are commanded absolutely. Therefore patience should not have been commanded merely, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i), as to the preparedness of the mind. |
| Praeterea, patientia et perseverantia sunt partes fortitudinis, ut dictum est. Sed de fortitudine non dantur praecepta affirmativa, sed solum negativa, ut supra habitum est. Ergo etiam neque de patientia et perseverantia fuerunt danda praecepta affirmativa, sed solum negativa. |
Objection 3: Further, patience and perseverance are parts of fortitude, as stated above (Question [128]; Question [136], Article [4]; Question [137], Article [2]). Now the precepts of fortitude are not affirmative but only negative, as stated above (Article [1], ad 2). Therefore the precepts of patience and perseverance should have been negative and not affirmative. |
| Sed contrarium habetur ex traditione sacrae Scripturae. | The contrary, however, follows from the way in which they are given by Holy Writ. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod lex divina perfecte informat hominem de his quae sunt necessaria ad recte vivendum. Indiget autem homo ad recte vivendum non solum virtutibus principalibus, sed etiam virtutibus secundariis et adiunctis. Et ideo in lege divina, sicut dantur convenientia praecepta de actibus virtutum principalium, ita etiam dantur convenientia praecepta de actibus secundariarum virtutum et adiunctarum. | I answer that, The Divine Law instructs man perfectly about such things as are necessary for right living. Now in order to live aright man needs not only the principal virtues, but also the secondary and annexed virtues. Wherefore the Divine Law contains precepts not only about the acts of the principal virtues, but also about the acts of the secondary and annexed virtues. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod magnificentia et magnanimitas non pertinent ad genus fortitudinis nisi secundum quandam magnitudinis excellentiam quam circa propriam materiam considerant. Ea autem quae pertinent ad excellentiam magis cadunt sub consiliis perfectionis quam sub praeceptis necessitatis. Et ideo de magnificentia et magnanimitate non fuerunt danda praecepta, sed magis consilia. Afflictiones autem et labores praesentis vitae pertinent ad patientiam et perseverantiam non ratione alicuius magnitudinis in eis consideratae, sed ratione ipsius generis. Et ideo de patientia et perseverantia fuerunt danda praecepta. | Reply to Objection 1: Magnificence and magnanimity do not belong to the genus of fortitude, except by reason of a certain excellence of greatness which they regard in their respective matters. Now things pertaining to excellence come under the counsels of perfection rather than under precepts of obligation. Wherefore, there was need of counsels, rather than of precepts about magnificence and magnanimity. On the other hand, the hardships and toils of the present life pertain to patience and perseverance, not by reason of any greatness observable in them, but on account of the very nature of those virtues. Hence the need of precepts of patience and perseverance. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, praecepta affirmativa, etsi semper obligent, non tamen obligant ad semper, sed pro loco et tempore. Et ideo sicut praecepta affirmativa quae de patientia dantur, sunt accipienda secundum praeparationem animi, ut scilicet homo sit paratus ea adimplere cum opus fuerit, ita etiam et praecepta patientiae. |
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [3], Article [2]), although affirmative precepts are always binding, they are not binding for always, but according to place and time. Wherefore just as the affirmative precepts about the other virtues are to be understood as to the preparedness of the mind, in the sense that man be prepared to fulfil them when necessary, so too are the precepts of patience to be understood in the same way. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod fortitudo, secundum quod distinguitur a patientia et perseverantia, est circa maxima pericula, in quibus cautius est agendum, nec oportet aliquid determinari in particulari quid sit faciendum. Sed patientia et perseverantia sunt circa minores afflictiones et labores. Et ideo magis sine periculo potest in eis determinari quid sit agendum, maxime in universali. | Reply to Objection 3: Fortitude, as distinct from patience and perseverance, is about the greatest dangers wherein one must proceed with caution; nor is it necessary to determine what is to be done in particular. On the other hand, patience and perseverance are about minor hardships and toils, wherefore there is less danger in determining, especially in general, what is to be done in such cases. |