Respondeo dicendum quod praemium essentiale hominis, quod est eius beatitudo, consistit in perfecta coniunctione animae ad Deum, inquantum eo perfecte fruitur ut viso et amato perfecte. Hoc autem praemium metaphorice corona dicitur vel aurea: tum ex parte meriti, quod cum quadam pugna agitur, militia enim est vita hominis super terram, Iob 7, [1]; tum etiam ex parte praemii, per quod homo efficitur quodammodo divinitatis particeps, et per consequens regiae potestatis, Apoc. 5, [10], fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes; corona autem est proprium signum regiae potestatis; Et eadem ratione praemium quod essentiali additur, coronae rationem habet. Significat etiam corona perfectionem quandam, ratione figurae circularis: ut ex hoc etiam perfectioni competat beatorum. Sed quia nihil potest superaddi quin sit eo minus, ideo superadditum praemium aureola nominatur. I answer that, Man’s essential reward, which is his beatitude, consists in the perfect union of the soul with God, inasmuch as it enjoys God perfectly as seen and loved perfectly. Now this reward is called a ‘crown,’ or ‘aurea,’ metaphorically, both with reference to merit which is gained by a kind of conflict—since the life of man upon earth is a warfare (Job 7:1)—and with reference to the reward whereby in a way man is made a participator of divinity, and consequently endowed with regal power: thou hast made us to our God a kingdom (Rev 5:10); for a crown is the proper sign of regal power. In like manner, the accidental reward which is added to the essential has the character of a crown. For a crown signifies some kind of perfection on account of its circular shape, so that for this very reason it is becoming to the perfection of the blessed. Since, however, nothing can be added to the essential but what is less than it, the additional reward is called an ‘aureole’. Huic autem essentiali praemio quod aurea dicitur, aliquid superadditur dupliciter. Uno modo, ex conditione naturae eius qui praemiatur: sicut supra beatitudinem animae gloria corporis adiungitur. Unde et ipsa gloria corporis interdum aureola nominatur: unde super illud Exod. 25, [11], facies alteram coronam aureolam, dicit quaedam Glossa quod in fine aureola superponitur, cum in Scriptura dicatur quod eis sublimior gloria in receptione corporum servetur. Sic autem nunc de aureola non agitur. Now something may be added in two ways to this essential reward which we call the ‘aurea’. First, in consequence of a condition attaching to the nature of the one rewarded: thus the glory of the body is added to the beatitude of the soul, wherefore this same glory of the body is sometimes called an aureole. Thus a Gloss of Bede on Exodus 25:25: thou shalt make another little golden crown, says that finally the aureole is added when it is stated in the Scriptures that a higher degree of glory is in store for us when our bodies are resumed. But it is not in this sense that we speak of an aureole now. Alio modo ex ratione operis meritorii. Quod quidem rationem meriti habet ex duobus, ex quibus etiam habet bonitatis rationem: scilicet ex radice caritatis, qua refertur in finem ultimum, et sic debetur ei essentiale praemium, scilicet perventio ad finem, quae est aurea; et ex ipso genere actus, quod laudabilitatem quandam habet ex debitis circumstantiis, et ex habitu eliciente, et proximo fine; et sic debetur ei quoddam accidentale praemium, quod aureola dicitur. Et hoc modo de aureola ad praesens intendimus. Et sic dicendum est quod aureola dicit aliquid aureae superadditum: idest, quoddam gaudium de operibus a se factis quae habent rationem victoriae excellentis, quod est aliud gaudium ab eo quo de coniunctione ad Deum gaudetur, quod gaudium aurea dicitur. Second, in consequence of the nature of the meritorious act. Now this has the character of merit on two counts, whence also it has the character of good. First, to wit, from its root, which is charity, since it is referred to the last end, and thus there is due to it the essential reward, namely, the attainment of the end, and this is the aurea. Second, from the very genus of the act, which derives a certain praiseworthiness from its due circumstances, from the habit eliciting it, and from its proximate end, and thus is due to it a kind of accidental reward which we call an aureole: and it is in this sense that we regard the aureole now. Accordingly, it must be said that an aureole denotes something added to the aurea, a kind of joy, to wit, in the works one has done, in that they have the character of a signal victory: for this joy is distinct from the joy in being united to God, which is called the aurea. Quidam tamen dicunt, quod ipsum praemium commune, quod est aurea, accipit nomen aureolae secundum quod virginibus vel martyribus vel doctoribus redditur, sicut et denarius accipit nomen debiti ex hoc quod alicui debetur, quamvis omnino idem sint debitum et denarius; non tamen ita quod praemium essentiale oporteat esse majus quando aureola dicitur; sed quia excellentiori actui respondet, non quidem secundum meriti intensionem, sed secundum modum merendi; ut quamvis in duobus sit aequalis limpiditas divinae visionis, in uno tamen dicatur aureola, non in altero, inquantum respondet excellentiori merito secundum modum agendi. Sed hoc videtur esse contra intentionem Glossae Exod. 25. Si enim idem esset aurea et aureola; non diceretur aureola aureae superponi. Et praeterea, cum merito respondeat praemium, oportet quod illi excellentiae meriti quae est ex modo agendi, respondeat aliqua excellentia in praemio; et hanc excellentiam vocamus aureolam; unde oportet aureolam ab aurea differre. Some, however, affirm that the common reward, which is the aurea, receives the name of aureole according as it is given to virgins, martyrs, or doctors: even as money receives the name of debt through being due to some one, though the money and the debt are altogether the same. And that nevertheless this does not imply that the essential reward is any greater when it is called an aureole; but that it corresponds to a more excellent act, more excellent not in intensity of merit but in the manner of meriting; so that although two persons may have the divine vision with equal clearness, it is called an aureole in one and not in the other insofar as it corresponds to higher merit as regards the way of meriting. But this would seem contrary to the meaning of the Gloss quoted above. For if aurea and aureole were the same, the aureole would not be described as added to the aurea. Moreover, since reward corresponds to merit, a more excellent reward must correspond to this more excellent way of meriting: and it is this excellence that we call an aureole. Hence it follows that an aureole differs from the aurea. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beatitudo includit in se omnia bona quae sunt necessaria ad perfectam hominis vitam, quae consistit in perfecta hominis operatione. Sed quaedam possunt superaddi, non quasi necessaria ad perfectam operationem ut sine quibus esse non possit: sed quia, his additis, est beatitudo clarior. Unde pertinent ad bene esse beatitudinis, et ad decentiam quandam ipsius. Sicut et felicitas politica ornatur nobilitate et corporis pulchritudine et huiusmodi, sine quibus esse potest, ut patet in I Ethic. Et hoc modo se habet aureola ad beatitudinem patriae. Reply Obj. 1: Beatitude includes all the goods necessary for man’s perfect life consisting in his perfect operation. Yet some things can be added, not as being necessary for that perfect operation as though it were impossible without them, but as adding to the glory of beatitude. Hence they regard the well-being of beatitude and a certain fitness thereto. Even so, civic happiness is embellished by nobility and bodily beauty and so forth, and yet it is possible without them as stated in Ethics 1.8: and thus is the aureole in comparison with the happiness of heaven. Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui servat consilia et praecepta, semper meretur magis quam ille qui servat praecepta tantum, secundum quod ratio meriti consideratur in operibus ex ipso genere operum: non autem semper secundum quod ratio meriti pensatur ex radice caritatis, cum quandoque ex maiori caritate aliquis servet praecepta tantum quam aliquis praecepta et consilia. Sed ut pluries accidit e converso: quia probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis, ut Gregorius dicit. Non ergo ipsum praemium essentiale magis intensum dicitur aureola, sed id quod praemio essentiali superadditur: indifferenter sive sit maius praemium essentiale habentis aureolam, sive minus, sive aequale praemio essentiali non habentis. Reply Obj. 2: He who keeps the counsels and the commandments always merits more than he who keeps the commandments only, if we gather the notion of merit in works from the very genus of those works; but not always if we gauge the merit from its root, charity: since sometimes a man keeps the commandments alone out of greater charity than one who keeps both commandments and counsels. For the most part, however, the contrary happens, because the proof of love is in the performance of deeds, as Gregory says (Homilies on the Gospels 30). Wherefore it is not the more excellent essential reward that is called an aureole, but that which is added to the essential reward without reference to the essential reward of the possessor of an aureole being greater, or less than, or equal to the essential reward of one who has no aureole. Ad tertium dicendum quod caritas est principium merendi, sed actus noster est quasi instrumentum quo meremur. Ad effectum autem consequendum non solum requiritur debita dispositio in primo movente, sed etiam recta dispositio in instrumento, Et ideo in effectu aliquid consequitur ex parte primi principii, quod est principale; et aliquid ex parte instrumenti, quod est secundarium. Unde et in praemio aliquid est ex parte caritatis, scilicet aurea; et aliquid ex genere operationis, scilicet aureola. Reply Obj. 3: Charity is the first principle of merit: but our actions are the instruments, so to speak, whereby we merit. Now in order to obtain an effect, there is requisite not only a due disposition in the first mover, but also a right disposition in the instrument. Hence something principal results in the effect with reference to the first mover, and something secondary with reference to the instrument. Wherefore in the reward also there is something on the part of charity, namely, the aurea, and something on the part of the kind of work, namely, the aureole. Ad quintum dicendum quod angeli omnes in eodem genere actus suam beatitudinem meruerunt, scilicet in hoc quod sunt conversi ad Deum: et ideo nullum singulare praemium invenitur in uno quod alius non habeat aliquo modo. Homines autem diversis generibus actuum beatitudinem merentur. Et ideo non est simile. Reply Obj. 4: All the angels merited their beatitude by the same kind of act, namely, by turning to God: and consequently no particular reward is found in any one which another has not in some way. But men merit beatitude by different kinds of acts: and so the comparison fails. Tamen illud quod unus videtur specialiter habere inter homines, quodammodo omnes communiter habenti inquantum scilicet per caritatem perfectam unusquisque bonum alterius suum reputat. Non tamen hoc gaudium quo unus alteri congaudet, potest aureola nominari: quia non datur in praemium victoriae eius, sed magis respicit victoriam alienam; corona enim ipsis victoribus redditur, non victoriae congaudentibus. Nevertheless among men what one seems to have specially, all have in common in some way, insofar as each one, by charity, deems another’s good his own. Yet this joy whereby one shares another’s joy cannot be called an aureole because it is not given him as a reward for his victory, but regards more the victory of another: whereas a crown is awarded the victors themselves and not to those who rejoice with them in the victory. Ad quintum dicendum quod maior est excellentia meriti quae consurgit ex caritate quam illa quae consurgit ex genere actus: sicut finis, ad quem ordinat caritas, est potior his quae sunt ad finem, circa quae actus nostri consistunt. Unde et praemium respondens merito ratione caritatis, quantumcumque parvum, est maius, quolibet praemio respondente actui ratione sui generis. Et ideo aureola deminutive dicitur respectu aureae. Reply Obj. 5: The merit arising from charity is more excellent than that which arises from the kind of action: just as the end to which charity directs us is more excellent than the things directed to that end, and with which our actions are concerned. Wherefore the reward corresponding to merit by reason of charity, however little it may be, is greater than any reward corresponding to an action by reason of its genus. Hence aureole is used as a diminutive in comparison with aurea. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum aureola differat a fructu Whether the aureole differs from the fruit? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aureola non differat a fructu. Eidem merito non debentur diversa praemia. Sed eidem merito respondet aureola et fructus centesimus, scilicet virginitatis, ut patet in Glossa, Matth. 13, [23]. Ergo aureola est idem, quod fructus. Objection 1: It would seem that the aureole does not differ from the fruit. For different rewards are not due to the same merit. Now the aureole and the hundredfold fruit correspond to the same merit, according to a Gloss on Matthew 13:8, some a hundredfold. Therefore, the aureole is the same as the fruit. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Virginitate, quod centesimus fructus debetur martyri. Et ideo debetur virgini. Ergo fructus est quoddam praemium commune virginibus et martyribus. Sed eisdem etiam debetur aureola. Ergo aureola est idem quod fructus. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (On Virginity 45) that the hundredfold fruit is due to the martyrs, and also to virgins. Therefore, the fruit is a reward common to virgins and martyrs. But the aureole also is due to them. Therefore, the aureole is the same as the fruit. Praeterea, in beatitudine non invenitur nisi duplex praemium: scilicet essentiale; et accidentale, quod essentiali superadditur. Sed praemium essentiali superadditum dictum est esse aureolam: quod patet ex hoc quod, Exod. 25 [25], aureola coronae aureae superponi dicitur. Sed fructus non est praemium essentiale: quia sic deberetur omnibus beatis. Ergo est idem quod aureola. Obj. 3: Further, there are only two rewards in beatitude, namely, the essential and the accidental (which is added to the essential.) Now that which is added to the essential reward is called an aureole, as evidenced by the statement that the little crown [aureola] is added to the crown (Exod 25:25). But the fruit is not the essential reward, for in that case it would be due to all the blessed. Therefore, it is the same as the aureole. Sed contra: Quaecumque non sunt eiusdem divisionis, non sunt eiusdem rationis. Sed fructus et aureola non similiter dividuntur: quia aureola dividitur in aureolam virginum, martyrum et doctorum; fructus autem in fructum coniugatorum, viduarum et virginum. Ergo fructus et aureola non sunt idem. On the contrary, Things which are not divided in the same way are not of the same nature. Now fruit and aureole are not divided in the same way, since aureole is divided into the aureole of virgins, of martyrs, and of doctors: whereas fruit is divided into the fruit of the married, of widows, and of virgins. Therefore, fruit and aureole are not the same. Praeterea, si fructus et aureola essent idem, cuicumque deberetur fructus, deberetur et aureola. Hoc autem patet esse falsum: quia fructus debetur viduitati, non autem aureola. Ergo, etc. Further, If fruit and aureole were the same, the aureole would be due to whomsoever the fruit is due. But this is manifestly untrue, since a fruit is due to widowhood, while an aureole is not. Therefore, etc. Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae metaphorice dicuntur, possunt varie accipi, secundum adaptationem ad diversas proprietates eius unde fit transumptio. Cum autem fructus proprie in rebus corporalibus dicatur de terra nascentibus, secundum diversas conditiones quae in fructibus corporalibus inveniri possunt, diversimode fructus spiritualiter accipitur. Fructus enim corporalis dulcedo est, quae reficit secundum quod in usum hominis venit; est etiam ultimum ad quod operatio naturae pervenit; est etiam id quod ex agricultura expectatur per seminationem vel quoscumque alios modos. I answer that, Metaphorical expressions can be taken in various ways, according as we find resemblances to the various properties of the thing from which the comparison is taken. Now since fruit, properly speaking, is applied to material things born of the earth, we employ it variously in a spiritual sense, with reference to the various conditions that obtain in material fruits. For the material fruit has sweetness whereby it refreshes so far as it is used by man; again, it is the last thing to which the operation of nature attains; moreover, it is that to which agriculture looks forward as the result of sowing or any other process. Quandoque igitur fructus spiritualiter accipitur pro eo quod reficit quasi ultimus finis. Et secundum hanc significationem dicimur Deo frui: perfecte quidem in patria; imperfecte autem in via. Et ex hac significatione accipitur fruitio quae est dos. Sic autem nunc de fructibus non loquimur. Accordingly, fruit is sometimes taken in a spiritual sense for that which refreshes as being the last end: and according to this signification we are said to enjoy [frui] God perfectly in heaven and imperfectly on the way. From this signification we have fruition, which is a dowry: but we are not speaking of fruit in this sense now. Quandoque autem sumitur fructus spiritualiter pro eo quod reficit tantum, quamvis non sit ultimus finis. Et sic virtutes fructus dicuntur, inquantum mentem sincera dulcedine reficiunt, ut Ambrosius dicit. Et sic accipitur fructus Galat., [22–23]: fructus autem Spiritus caritas, gaudium, etc. Sic autem de fructibus nunc etiam non quaeritur. Sometimes fruit signifies spiritually that which refreshes only, though it is not the last end; and thus the virtues are called fruits, inasmuch as they refresh the mind with genuine sweetness, as Ambrose says (On Paradise 13). In this sense fruit is used in Galatians 6:22: the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, etc. Nor again is this the sense in which we speak of fruit now; for we have treated of this already. Potest autem alio modo sumi fructus: spiritualis ad similitudinem corporalis fructus inquantum corporalis fructus est quoddam commodum quod ex labore agriculturae expectatur: ut sic fructus dicatur illud praemium quod homo consequitur ex labore quo in hac vita laborat. Et sic omne praemium quod in futuro habebitur ex nostris laboribus, fructus dicitur. Et sic accipitur fructus Rom. 6, [22]: habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam. Sic etiam nos nunc de fructu non agimus. We may, however, take spiritual fruit in another sense, in likeness to material fruit, inasmuch as material fruit is a profit expected from the labor of husbandry: so that we call fruit that reward which man acquires from his labor in this life: and thus every reward which by our labors we shall acquire for the future life is called a fruit. In this sense fruit is taken in Romans 6:22: you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting. Yet neither in this sense do we speak of fruit now, Sed agimus nunc de fructu secundum quod ex semine consurgit: sic enim de fructu Dominus loquitur Matth. 13, [3 sqq.], ubi fructum dividit in tricesimum, sexagesimum et centesimum. Fructus autem secundum hoc potest prodire ex semine, quod vis sementina est efficax ad convertendum humores terrae in suam naturam: et quanto haec virtus est efficacior, et terra ad hoc paratior, tanto fructus sequitur uberior. Spirituale autem semen quod in nobis seminatur est verbum Dei. Unde quanto aliquis magis in spiritualitatem convertitur, a carne recedens, tanto in eo est maior fructus verbi Dei. Secundum hoc igitur fructus differt ab aurea et ab aureola, quia aurea consistit in gaudio quod habetur de Deo; aureola vero in gaudio quod habetur de operum perfectione; sed fructus in gaudio quod habetur de ipsa dispositione operantis secundum gradum spiritualitatis in quem proficit ex semine verbi Dei. But now we are treating of fruit as being the product of seed: for it is in this sense that our Lord speaks of fruit (Matt 13:23), where he divides fruit into thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold. Now fruit is the product of seed insofar as the seed power is capable of transforming the humors of the soil into its own nature; and the more efficient this power, and the better prepared the soil, the more plentiful fruit will result. Now the spiritual seed which is sown in us is the Word of God: wherefore the more a person is transformed into a spiritual nature by withdrawing from carnal things, the greater is the fruit of the Word in him. Accordingly, the fruit of the Word of God differs from the aurea and the aureole, in that the aurea consists in the joy one has in God, and the aureole in the joy one has in the perfection of one’s works, whereas the fruit consists in the joy that the worker has in his own disposition as to his degree of spirituality to which he has attained through the seed of God’s Word. Quidam distinguunt inter aureolam et fructum dicentes quod aureola debetur pugnanti, secundum illud II Tim. 2, [5], non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit; fructus autem laboranti, secundum illud quod dicitur Sap. 3, [15], bonorum, laborum gloriosus est fructus. Alii vero dicunt quod aurea respicit conversionem ad Deum; sed aureola et fructus consistunt in his quae sunt ad finem, ita tamen quod fructus principalius respicit voluntatem, aureola autem magis corpus. Some, however, distinguish between aureole and fruit by saying that the aureole is due to the fighter, according to 2 Timothy 2:5: he shall not be crowned, except he strive lawfully; whereas the fruit is due to the laborer, according to Wisdom 3:15: the fruit of good labors is glorious. Others again say that the aurea regards conversion to God, while the aureole and the fruit regard things directed to the end; yet so that the fruit principally regards the will, and the aureole the body. Sed, cum in eodem sit labor et pugna et secundum idem; et praemium corporis ex praemio animae dependeat: secundum praedicta non esset differentia inter fructum, auream et aureolam, nisi ratione tantum. Et hoc non potest esse: cum quibusdam assignetur fructus quibus non assignatur aureola. Since, however, labor and strife are in the same subject and about the same matter, and since the body’s reward depends on the soul’s, these explanations of the difference between fruit, aurea, and aureole would only imply a logical difference: and this cannot be, since fruit is assigned to some to whom no aureole is assigned. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non est inconveniens eidem merito, secundum diversa quae in ipso sunt, diversa praemia respondere. Unde et virginitati respondet aurea, secundum quod propter Deum servatur imperio caritatis; aureola vero secundum quod est quoddam perfectionis opus habens rationem victoriae excellentis; fructus vero secundum quod per virginitatem homo in quandam spiritualitatem transit; a carnalitate recedens. Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing incongruous if various rewards correspond to the same merit according to the various things contained therein. Therefore, to virginity corresponds the aurea insofar as virginity is kept for God’s sake at the command of charity; the aureole, insofar as virginity is a work of perfection having the character of a signal victory; and the fruit, insofar as by virginity a person acquires a certain spirituality by withdrawing from carnal things. Ad secundum dicendum quod fructus secundum propriam acceptionem, prout nunc loquimur, non dicit praemium commune martyrio et virginitati, sed tribus continentiae gradibus. Glossa autem illa quae ponit fructum centesimum martyribus respondere, large accipit fructum, secundum quod quaelibet remuneratio dicitur fructus: ut sic per centesimum fructum remuneratio designetur quae quibuslibet operibus perfectionis debetur. Reply Obj. 2: Fruit, according to the proper acceptation as we are speaking of it now, does not denote the reward common to martyrdom and virginity, but that which corresponds to the three degrees of continency. This Gloss which states that the hundredfold fruit corresponds to martyrs takes fruit in a broad sense, according as any reward is called a fruit, the hundredfold fruit thus denoting the reward due to any perfect works whatever. Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis aureola sit quoddam accidentale praemium essentiali superadditum, non tamen omne accidentale praemium est aureola: sed praemium de operibus perfectionis, quibus homo maxime Christo conformatur, secundum praedictam victoriam. Unde non est inconveniens quod abstractioni a carnali vita aliquod aliud accidentale praemium debeatur, quod fructus dicitur. Reply Obj. 3: Although the aureole is an accidental reward added to the essential reward, nevertheless not every accidental reward is an aureole, but only that which is assigned to works of perfection, whereby man is most conformed to Christ in the achievement of a perfect victory. Hence it is not unfitting that another accidental reward, which is called the fruit, be due sometimes to the withdrawal from a carnal life. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum fructus debeatur soli virtuti continentiae Whether a fruit is due to the virtue of continence alone? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fructus non debeatur soli virtuti continentiae. Quia I Cor. 15, super illud [v. 41], alia claritas solis etc., dicit Glossa quod claritati solis illorum dignitas comparatur qui centesimum fructum habent; lunari autem qui sexagesimum; stellae vero qui tricesimum. Sed illa diversitas claritatum, secundum intentionem Apostoli, pertinet ad quamcumque beatitudinis differentiam. Ergo diversi fructus non debent respondere soli continentiae. Objection 1: It would seem that a fruit is not due to the virtue of continence alone. For a Gloss on 1 Corinthians 15:41: one is the glory of the sun, says that the worth of those who have the hundredfold fruit is compared to the glory of the sun; to the glory of the moon those who have the sixtyfold fruit; and to the stars those who have the thirtyfold fruit. Now this difference of glory, in the meaning of the Apostle, regards any difference whatever of beatitude. Therefore, the various fruits should correspond to none but the virtue of continence. Praeterea, fructus a fruitione dicuntur. Sed fruitio pertinet ad praemium essentiale, quod omnibus virtutibus respondet. Ergo, etc. Obj. 2: Further, fruits are so called from fruition. But fruition belongs to the essential reward which corresponds to all the virtues. Therefore, etc. Praeterea, fructus labori debetur: Sap. 3, [15], bonorum laborum gloriosus est fructus. Sed maior est labor in fortitudine quam in temperantia vel in continentia. Ergo fructus non respondet soli continentiae. Obj. 3: Further, fruit is due to labor: the fruit of good labors is glorious (Wis 3:15). Now there is greater labor in fortitude than in temperance or continence. Therefore, fruit does not correspond to continence alone. Praeterea, difficilius est modum non excedere in cibis, qui sunt necessarii ad vitam, quam in venereis, sine quibus vita conservari potest. Et sic maior est labor parsimoniae quam continentiae. Ergo parsimoniae magis respondet fructus quam continentiae. Obj. 4: Further, it is more difficult not to exceed the measure in food, which is necessary for life, than in sexual matters, without which life can be sustained: and thus the labor of frugality is greater than that of continence. Therefore, fruit corresponds to frugality rather than to continence. Praeterea, fructus refectionem importat. Refectio autem praecipue est in fine. Cum ergo virtutes theologicae finem habeant pro obiecto, scilicet ipsum Deum, videtur quod eis fructus maxime debeat respondere. Obj. 5: Further, fruit implies delight, and delight regards especially the end. Since, then, the theological virtues have the end for their object, namely, God himself, it would seem that to them especially the fruit should correspond. Sed contra est quod habetur in Glossa Matth. 13, [23], quae fructus assignat virginitati, viduitati et continentiae coniugali, quae sunt continentiae partes. On the contrary, There is the statement of the Gloss on Matthew 13:23, the one a hundredfold, which assigns the fruits to virginity, widowhood, and conjugal continence, which are parts of continence. Respondeo dicendum quod fructus est quoddam praemium quod debetur homini ex hoc quod a carnali vita in spiritualem transit. Et ideo illi virtuti praecipue fructus respondet quae hominem praecipue a subiectione carnis liberat. Hoc autem facit continentia: quia per delectationes venereas anima praecipue carni subditur, adeo ut in actu carnali, secundum Hieronymum, nec Spiritus prophetiae corda tangat prophetarum; nec in illa delectatione est possibile aliquid intelligere, ut Philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic. Et ideo continentiae magis respondet fructus quam alii virtuti. I answer that, A fruit is a reward due to a person in that he passes from the carnal to the spiritual life. Consequently, a fruit corresponds especially to that virtue which more than any other frees man from subjection to the flesh. Now this is the effect of continence, since it is by sexual pleasures that the soul is especially subject to the flesh; so much so that in the carnal act, according to Jerome (Epistle to Ageruchia), not even the spirit of prophecy touches the heart of the prophet; nor, as the Philosopher says, is it possible to understand anything in the midst of that pleasure (Ethics 7.11). Therefore, fruit corresponds to continence rather than to another virtue.