Aliud autem est bonum ultimum quod considerat philosophus et theologus. Philosophus enim considerat quasi bonum ultimum quod est humanis viribus proportionatum, et consistit in actu ipsius hominis; unde felicitatem dicit esse operationem quamdam. Et ideo secundum philosophum actus bonus, cuius principium virtus dicitur, dicitur absolute in quantum est conveniens potentiae ut perficiens ipsam. Unde quemcumque habitum invenit philosophus talem actum elicientem, dicit eum esse virtutem; sive sit in parte intellectiva, ut scientia et intellectus et huiusmodi virtutes intellectuales, quarum actus est bonum ipsius potentiae, scilicet considerare verum; sive in parte affectiva, ut temperantia, et fortitudo, et aliae virtutes morales. Sed theologus considerat quasi bonum ultimum id quod est naturae facultatem excedens, scilicet vitam aeternam, ut supra dictum est. Unde bonum in actibus humanis non considerat absolute, quia ibi non ponit finem, sed in ordine ad illud bonum quod ponit finem: asserens illum actum tantummodo esse bonum complete qui de proximo ad bonum finale ordinatur, id est qui est meritorius vitae aeternae; et omnem talem actum dicit esse actum virtutis; et quicumque habitus proprie elicit talem actum, ab ipso virtus appellatur. But the philosopher considers one thing as final good and the theologian another. For the philosopher considers as final good that which has a proportion to the human powers and exists in the act of man himself. Thus, he says that happiness is an activity. Therefore, according to the philosopher, a good act, whose principle is called a virtue, is said to be good without qualification in so far as it is in conformity with the potency as that which perfects it. Consequently, when the philosopher finds any habit which elicits such an act, he calls it a virtue, whether it be in the intellective part, as science, understanding of principles, and intellectual virtues of this sort, whose acts are the good of the power itself, namely, to consider the true; or whether it be in the affective part, as temperance, bravery, and the other moral virtues. But the theologian considers as the final good that which is beyond the capacity of nature, namely, everlasting life, as has been said. Thus, he does not consider the good in human acts without qualification, because he puts the end not in the acts themselves, but in the disposition to that good which he makes the end. He says that only that act is completely good which has a proximate relation to the final good, that is, an act which merits eternal life. He says that every such act is an act of virtue, and every habit properly eliciting such an act he calls a virtue. Aliquis autem actus meritorius dici non potest nisi secundum quod est in potestate operantis constitutus: quia qui meretur, oportet quod aliquid exhibeat; nec exhibere potest nisi quod aliquo modo suum est, id est ex ipso. Actus autem aliquis in potestate nostra consistit, secundum quod est voluntatis: sive sit eius ut ab ipsa elicitus, ut diligere et velle: sive ut ab ipsa imperatus, ut ambulare et loqui. Unde respectu cuiuslibet talis actus potest poni aliqua virtus, eliciens actus perfectos in tali genere actuum. Credere autem, ut supra dictum est, non habet assensum nisi ex imperio voluntatis; unde, secundum id quod est, a voluntate dependet. Et inde est quod ipsum credere potest esse meritorium; et fides, quae est habitus eliciens ipsum, est secundum theologum virtus. However, an act can be called meritorious only if it lies within the power of the agent. For it is necessary for one who merits to present something. Nor can he present something unless it is in some way his own, that is, from himself. Now, an act lies within our power, in so far as it belongs to our will, whether as elicited by the will, as to love and to wish, or as commanded by the will, as to walk and to talk. Hence, with reference to any such act, we can posit as a virtue that which elicits perfect acts of this type. As has been said above, there is assent in belief only by reason of the command of the will. Therefore, it depends on the will according to its very nature. It is for this reason that to believe can be meritorious, and that faith, which is the habit eliciting the act of believing, is a virtue for the theologian. Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod cognitio et scientia non dividitur contra virtutem simpliciter, sed contra virtutem moralem, quae communius virtus dicitur. Reply Obj. 1: Knowledge and science are not distinguished from virtue taken simply, but from moral virtue, which is more commonly called virtue. Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis non sufficiat ad rationem vitii vel virtutis quod aliquid sit causatum ex vitio vel virtute, sufficit tamen, ad hoc quod aliquis actus sit actus vitii vel virtutis, quod imperatus a vitio vel virtute possit esse. Reply Obj. 2: Although the fact that something is caused by a virtue or a vice is not enough to put virtue or vice in its definition, the fact that it can be commanded by a virtue or a vice is enough to make an act be the act of a vice or virtue. Ad tertium dicendum, quod bonum illud ad quod virtus ordinat, non est accipiendum quasi aliquod obiectum alicuius actus; sed illud bonum est ipse actus perfectus, quem virtus elicit. Licet autem verum ratione a bono differat; tamen hoc ipsum quod est considerare verum, est quoddam bonum intellectus; et hoc ipsum quod est assentire primae veritati propter seipsam est quoddam bonum meritorium. Unde fides, quae ad hunc actum ordinatur, dicitur esse virtus. Reply Obj. 3: The good toward which a virtue gives an ordination should not be taken as the object of some act; rather, that good is the perfect act itself, which the virtue elicits. And, although the true differs from the good in its intelligible content, the act of considering the true is a good of the understanding, and to give assent to first truth on its own account is a good worthy of merit. Consequently, faith, which is ordained to this act, is called a virtue. Et per hoc patet responsio ad quartum. Reply Obj. 4: The answer to the fourth difficulty is clear from the third response. Ad quintum dicendum, quod secundum quod nunc loquimur de virtute, neque scientia neque opinio virtus dici potest; sed sola fides: quae quantum ad id quod voluntatis est, prout modo praedicto in genus virtutis cadit, non est media inter scientiam et opinionem, quia in scientia vel opinione non est aliqua inclinatio ex voluntate, sed ex ratione tantum. Si autem loqueremur de eis quantum ad id quod est cognitionis tantum, sic neque opinio neque fides esset virtus, cum non habeant completam cognitionem, sed tantummodo scientia. Reply Obj. 5: Neither scientific knowledge nor opinion, but only faith, can be called a virtue in the sense in which we are now speaking of virtue. For faith is not a mean between science and opinion with reference to that which concerns the will, and it is according to this that it is classified as a virtue in the way we have mentioned. For in science and opinion there is no inclination because of the will, but only because of reason. If, however, we are talking about them with reference only to knowledge, neither opinion nor faith would be a virtue, since they do not have perfect knowledge. Only science has this. Ad sextum dicendum, quod veritas prima non est obiectum proprium fidei nisi sub hac ratione prout est non apparens; quod patet ex definitione apostoli, ubi proprium obiectum fidei ponitur non apparens. Unde quando veritas prima praesto erit, amittet rationem obiecti. Reply Obj. 6: First truth is the proper object of faith only under the character of non-appearing, as is clear from the definition of the Apostle, where it is said that the proper object of faith is that which does not appear. Consequently, when first truth is present, it loses its character of object. Ad septimum dicendum, quod fides secundum hoc dicitur esse ultimum potentiae, quod complet potentiam ad eliciendum actum bonum et meritorium. Non autem requiritur ad rationem virtutis quod per eam eliciatur optimus actus qui potest elici a potentia illa; cum contingat in eadem potentia esse plures virtutes, quarum una alia nobiliorem actum elicit, sicut magnificentia liberalitate. Reply Obj. 7: Faith is said to be the fullest development of a power in so far as it adds to the power that which is needed to elicit a good and meritorious act. For a virtue really to be a virtue, however, it does not have to elicit the best act possible from that power, for in the same power there may be several virtues, one of which elicits an act more noble than another, as magnificence over liberality. Ad octavum dicendum, quod in quibuslibet duobus ordinatis ad invicem, perfectio inferioris est ut subdatur superiori; sicut concupiscibilis, quod subdatur rationi. Unde habitus virtutis non dicitur expedire concupiscibilem ad actum ut faciat eam libere effluere in concupiscibilia; sed quia facit eam perfecte subiectam rationi. Similiter etiam bonum ipsius intellectus est ut subdatur voluntati adhaerenti Deo: unde fides dicitur intellectum expedire, in quantum sub tali voluntate ipsum captivat. Reply Obj. 8: In any two things which are ordained to each other the perfection of the lower is for it to be subject to the higher, as the concupiscible which is subject to reason. Because of this, the habit of a virtue is said to make it easy for the concupiscible power to act, not in the sense so that it makes it pursue concupiscible objects without restraint, but because it brings it perfectly under the dominion of reason. Similarly, the good of understanding itself is to be subject to the will which adheres to God. Thus, faith is said to help the understanding in so far as it makes it captive under such a will. Ad nonum dicendum, quod fides neque est virtus moralis neque intellectualis; sed est virtus theologica. Virtutes autem theologicae, quamvis conveniant subiecto cum intellectualibus vel moralibus, differunt tamen obiecto. Obiectum enim virtutum theologicarum est ipse finis ultimus; obiectum vero aliarum ea quae sunt ad finem. Ideo autem a theologis (ponuntur) quaedam virtutes circa finem ipsum, non autem a philosophis, quia finis humanae vitae quem philosophi considerant, non excedit facultatem naturae: unde ex naturali inclinatione homo tendit in illud; et sic non oportet quod per aliquos habitus elevetur ad tendendum in illum finem, sicut oportet quod elevetur ad tendendum in finem qui facultatem naturae excedit, quem theologi considerant. Reply Obj. 9: Faith is not an intellectual or moral virtue, but a theological virtue. And, although the theological virtues have the same subject as moral and intellectual virtues, they have a different object. For the object of the theological virtues is the last end itself, whereas the object of the other virtues is the means to the end. Therefore, the theologians propose certain virtues which concern the end itself. But the philosophers do not do this, because the end of human life which the philosophers study does not transcend the power of nature. Hence, man's pursuit of that end is the result of a natural inclination, and to pursue that end he does not need to be elevated by any habits, as he does to pursue the end considered by the theologians, which transcends the power of nature. Ad decimum dicendum, quod fides non est in intellectu nisi secundum quod imperatur a voluntate, ut ex dictis patet. Unde, quamvis illud quod est ex parte voluntatis possit dici accidentale intellectui, est tamen fidei essentiale, sicut id quod est rationis, est accidentale concupiscibili, essentiale autem temperantiae. Reply Obj. 10: Faith is in the intellect only in so far as it is commanded by the will, as is clear from what has been said. Hence, although that which comes from the will can be said to be accidental to the intellect, it is still essential to faith. The same holds for the rational element, which is accidental to the concupiscible, but essential to temperance. Ad undecimum dicendum, quod prophetia non dependet ex voluntate prophetantis, ut dicitur II Petri I, 21; fides autem est quodammodo ex voluntate credentis; et ideo prophetia non potest dici virtus sicut fides. Reply Obj. 11: Prophecy does not depend on the will of the prophet, as is said in the second Epistle of St. Peter 1:21. Faith, however, is to some extent dependent on the will of the believer. Therefore, prophecy cannot be called a virtue as faith can. Articulus 4 Article 4 In quo sit fides sicut in subiecto What is the subject in which faith exists Quarto quaeritur in quo sit fides sicut in subiecto. In the fourth article we ask: what is the subject in which faith exists? Et videtur quod non sit in parte cognoscitiva, sed affectiva. Virtus enim in parte affectiva esse videtur, cum virtus sit quidam amor ordinatus, ut dicit Augustinus in libro De moribus Ecclesiae. Sed fides virtus est. Ergo est in parte affectiva. Obj. 1: It seems to be not the cognitive, but the affective, part, for all virtue seems to exist in the affective part, since virtue is a kind of well-ordered love, as Augustine says. But faith is a virtue. Therefore, it exists in the affective part. Praeterea, virtus quamdam perfectionem importat; est enim dispositio perfecti ad optimum, ut dicitur in VII Physicorum. Sed cum fides habeat aliquid perfectionis et aliquid imperfectionis: id quod est imperfectionis, est ex parte cognitionis; quod autem est perfectionis est ex voluntate, ut scilicet invisibilibus firmiter adhaereat. Ergo secundum quod est virtus, est in affectiva. Obj. 2: Virtue implies some perfection, since it is the disposition of something perfect to that which is best, as is said in the Physics. But, since faith has some perfection and some imperfection, the imperfection derives from the cognitive element and the perfection derives from the volitional element, namely, that it hold firmly to things invisible. Therefore, in so far as it is a virtue, it is in the affective part. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit Ad Consentium, quod parvulus etsi fidem non habeat quae consistit in credentium voluntate, habet tamen fidei sacramentum; ex quo expresse habetur quod fides in voluntate sit. Obj. 3: Augustine says: although a child does not have the faith which is in the will of those who believe, he has the sacrament of faith. From this we clearly see that faith is in the will. Praeterea, in libro De praedestinatione sanctorum, dicit Augustinus quod ad fidem quae in credentium voluntate consistit, pertinet illud apostoli: quid habes quod non accepisti? Et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 4: Augustine says: the Apostle’s words, 'or what have you that you have not received' (1 Cor 4:7), refer to the faith which is in the wills of those who believe. We conclude as before. Praeterea, eiusdem videtur esse dispositio et perfectio. Sed fides disponit ad gloriam, quae etiam est in affectiva. Ergo et fides in affectiva consistit. Obj. 5: A disposition and its perfection seem to belong to the same thing. But faith is a disposition for glory, which is in the affective part. Therefore, faith, also, is in the affective part. Praeterea, meritum in voluntate consistit, quia sola voluntas est domina sui actus. Sed actus fidei est meritorius. Ergo est actus voluntatis; et ita videtur quod in voluntate consistat. Obj. 6: Merit resides in the will, because only the will is master of its acts. But the act of faith is meritorious. Therefore, it is an act of the will, and so it would seem that faith resides in the will. Sed dicebat, quod est simul in affectiva et cognitiva. Obj. 7: It was said that faith is in both the affective and the cognitive parts. Sed contra, unus habitus non potest esse duarum potentiarum. Fides autem est unus habitus. Ergo non potest esse in affectiva et cognitiva, quae sunt duae potentiae. On the contrary, one habit cannot belong to two powers. Faith, however, is one habit. Therefore, it cannot be in the affective and cognitive parts, which are two powers. Sed contra. Habitus perficiens aliquam potentiam, cum ea convenit in obiecto: alias non posset esse unus actus potentiae et habitus. Sed fides non convenit in obiecto cum affectiva, sed cum cognitiva tantum, quia obiectum utriusque est verum. Ergo fides est in cognitiva. On the contrary (1): A habit which perfects a power has the same object as the power. Otherwise, the act of the power and of the habit could not be one. But faith has the same object, not as the affective part, but as the cognitive part, since the object of both is the true. Therefore, faith is in the cognitive part. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in epistola Ad Consentium, quod fides est illuminatio mentis ad primam veritatem. Sed illuminari ad cognitivam pertinet. Ergo fides est in parte cognitiva. Furthermore (2): Augustine says that faith is the enlightening of the mind for the first truth. But to be enlightened pertains to the cognitive part. Therefore, faith is in the cognitive part. Praeterea, si fides dicatur esse in voluntate, hoc non erit nisi quia credimus volentes. Sed similiter omnia opera virtutum operamur cognoscentes, ut patet II Ethicorum. Ergo, eadem ratione, omnes virtutes essent in parte cognoscitiva; quod patet esse falsum. Furthermore (3): If faith is said to be in the will, it is so only because we believe willingly. But, in like manner, all the activities of the virtues take place in us knowingly, as is clear from the Ethics. Therefore, for the same reason all the virtues would be in the cognitive part, which is obviously false. Praeterea, per gratiam quae est in virtutibus, reformatur imago, quae in tribus potentiis consistit: scilicet memoria, intelligentia, et voluntate. Tres autem virtutes quae primo habent respectum ad gratiam, sunt fides, spes et caritas. Ergo aliqua earum erit in intelligentia. Constat autem quod non spes nec caritas. Ergo fides. Furthermore (4): Through grace, which is in the virtues, the image which is in the three powers of memory, intelligence, and will is refashioned. But the three virtues which primarily have reference to grace are faith, hope, and charity. Therefore, one of these is in the intelligence. It is evident, however, that neither hope nor charity is there. So, faith is there. Praeterea, sicut se habet vis affectiva ad probabile et reprobabile, ita se habet vis cognitiva ad probabile et improbabile. Sed virtus illa per quam approbatur reprobabile, secundum rationem humanam, scilicet caritas qua inimicus diligitur, qui videtur naturaliter reprobabilis esse, est in affectiva. Ergo fides qua probatur sive asseritur id quod videtur rationi improbabile esse, erit in cognoscitiva. Furthermore (5): The cognitive power has the same relation to that which can or cannot be proved, as the affective power has to that which can or cannot be approved. But the virtue by reason of which we approve that which, according to human reason, should not be approved is in the affective part. This virtue is charity, by which we love our enemies, a thing which naturally seems something not to be approved. Therefore, faith, by which we prove or assert that which to reason seems incapable of proof, is in the cognitive part. Responsio. Dicendum, quod circa hanc quaestionem multipliciter aliqui opinati sunt. Quidam enim dixerunt, fidem esse in utraque vi, scilicet affectiva et cognitiva. Quod nullo modo potest esse, si intelligatur quod in utraque sit ex aequo. Unius enim habitus oportet esse unum actum; nec potest esse unus actus ex aequo duarum potentiarum. Unde dicunt quidam eorum, quod est principaliter in affectiva. Sed istud non videtur esse verum, cum ipsum credere cogitationem quamdam importet, ut patet per Augustinum. Cogitatio autem est actus cognitivae; fides etiam scientia et visio quodammodo dicitur, ut supra dictum est, quae omnia ad cognitivam pertinent. I answer that: there are many, different opinions about this question. For some have said that faith is in both the affective and cognitive powers. But this cannot be true at all if it means that it is in both equally. For each habit must have one act, and one act cannot belong equally to two powers. Seeing this, some of these people say that faith is principally in the affective power. But this does not seem to be true, since to believe implies some “thought,” as is clear from Augustine. Thought, however, is an act of the cognitive part. Faith is also in some sense called scientific knowledge and sight, as was said above. And all of these belong to the cognitive power. Alii autem dicunt, quod fides est in intellectu, sed practico: quia practicum intellectum dicunt esse ad quem inclinat affectio, vel quem affectio sequitur, vel qui ad opus inclinat; quae tria inveniuntur in fide. Nam ex affectione quis inclinatur ad fidem: credimus enim quia volumus. Ipsa etiam affectio fidem sequitur, secundum quod actus fidei generat quodammodo caritatis actum. Ipsa etiam ad opus dirigit: nam fides per dilectionem operatur; Gal. V, 6. Sed hi non videntur intelligere quid sit intellectus practicus. Intellectus enim practicus idem est quod intellectus operativus: unde sola extensio ad opus facit aliquem intellectum esse practicum. Relatio autem ad affectionem vel antecedentem vel consequentem, non trahit ipsum extra genus speculativi intellectus. Nisi enim aliquis ad ipsam speculationem veritatis afficeretur, nunquam in actu intellectus speculativi esset delectatio: quod est contra philosophum in X Ethicorum, qui ponit purissimam delectationem esse in actu speculativi. Nec quaelibet relatio ad opus facit intellectum esse practicum: quia simplex speculatio potest esse alicui remota occasio aliquid operandi; sicut philosophus speculatur animam esse immortalem, et exinde sicut a causa remota sumit occasionem aliquid operandi. Sed intellectum practicum oportet esse proximam regulam operis, utpote quo consideretur ipsum operabile, et rationes operandi, sive causae operis. Constat autem quod obiectum fidei non est verum operabile, sed verum increatum, in quod non potest esse nisi actus intellectus speculativi. Unde fides est in intellectu speculativo, quamvis fides sit ut occasio remota aliquid operandi: unde etiam sibi non attribuitur operatio nisi mediante dilectione. Others say that faith is in the understanding, but the practical understanding, because they say the practical understanding is that to which desire tends, or which desire follows, or which inclines to a work. And these three are found in faith. It is because of desire that one is inclined to faith, for we believe what we will. Desire itself also follows faith, inasmuch as the act of faith in some sense produces the act of charity. It also leads to a work, for faith... works by charity (Gal 5:6). But these people do not seem to understand what the practical understanding is. For the practical understanding is the same as the operative understanding. Hence, only extension to a work makes an understanding practical. Reference to desire, however, either antecedent or consequent, does not withdraw the understanding from the category of speculative understanding. For, unless one were attracted to speculating about the truth, there would never be any pleasure in the act of speculative understanding. And this is contrary to the Philosopher, who says that the purest pleasure is in the act of speculative understanding. Nor does every reference to a work make the understanding practical, because simple speculation can be for someone the remote occasion of doing something. Thus, a philosopher contemplates the immortality of the soul, and from this, as from a remote cause, he takes occasion to do something. But, to be practical, the understanding must be the proximate rule of action, as that by which one studies the thing to be done, the methods of operation, and the causes of the work. It is evident, however, that the object of faith is not a truth which can be produced, but the uncreated truth, which can be an object only of speculative understanding. Consequently, faith is in the speculative understanding, although it is the remote occasion of doing something. For this reason, also, activity is attributed to it only through the mediation of charity. Sciendum tamen, quod non est in intellectu speculativo absolute, sed secundum quod subditur imperio voluntatis; sicut etiam et temperantia est in concupiscibili secundum quod participat aliqualiter rationem. Cum enim ad bonitatem actus alicuius potentiae requiratur quod illa potentia subdatur alicui potentiae superiori, sequendo eius imperium, non solum requiritur quod potentia superior tantum sit perfecta ad hoc quod recte imperet vel dirigat, sed etiam inferior ad hoc quod prompte obediat. Unde ille qui habet rationem rectam, sed concupiscibilem indomitam, non habet temperantiae virtutem, quia infestatur passionibus, quamvis non deducatur: et sic non facit actum virtutis faciliter et delectabiliter, quod exigitur ad virtutem; sed oportet ad hoc quod temperantia insit, quod ipsamet concupiscibilis sit per habitum perfecta, ut sine aliqua difficultate voluntati subdatur; et secundum hoc habitus temperantiae dicitur esse in concupiscibili. Et similiter (oportet) ad hoc quod intellectus prompte sequatur imperium voluntatis, quod sit aliquis habitus in ipso intellectu speculativo; et hic est habitus fidei divinitus infusus. We must bear in mind, nevertheless, that it is not in the speculative understanding absolutely, but only in so far as it is subject to the will. Similarly, temperance is in the concupiscible power only in so far as it participates to some extent in reason. For, since the good of the act of a power requires its subjection to a higher power by following its command, it is necessary not only that the higher have the perfection to command or direct correctly, but that the lower have the perfection to obey promptly. Hence, he who has right reason, but an uncontrolled concupiscible appetite, does not have the virtue of temperance, because he is harassed by his passions, even though he is not led astray by them. Consequently, he does not perform the act of virtue with the ease and pleasure which are needed for virtue. But, to have temperance, the concupiscible appetite itself must be perfected by a habit so that it is subject to the will without any difficulty. It is in this way that the habit of temperance is said to be in the concupiscible appetite. Similarly, for the understanding promptly to follow the command of the will, there must be a habit in the speculative understanding itself. This is the divinely infused habit of faith. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod verbum illud Augustini intelligitur de virtutibus moralibus, de quibus ibi loquitur. Vel potest dici quod loquitur de virtutibus quantum ad formam earum, quae est caritas. Reply Obj. 1: That passage of Augustine should be understood of the moral virtues, about which he is there speaking. Or it can be said that we are speaking of the virtues with reference to their form, which is charity. Ad secundum dicendum, quod in hoc quaedam perfectio cognitivae est, ut voluntati obtemperet Deo inhaerenti. Reply Obj. 2: The cognitive part has some perfection in so far as it obeys a will which clings to God. Ad tertium dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de actu fidei, qui quidem dicitur esse in voluntate non sicut in subiecto, sed sicut in causa, in quantum est a voluntate imperatus. Reply Obj. 3: Augustine is talking about the act of faith, which, indeed, is said to be in the will not as in a subject, but as in a cause, in so far as it is commanded by the will. Et similiter dicendum ad quartum. Reply Obj. 4: The same holds for the fourth difficulty.