Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod, cum habitus cognoscantur per actus et actus per obiecta, fides, cum sit habitus quidam, debet definiri per proprium actum in comparatione ad proprium obiectum. Actus autem fidei est credere, qui, sicut supra dictum est, actus est intellectus determinati ad unum ex imperio voluntatis. Sic ergo actus fidei habet ordinem et ad obiectum voluntatis, quod est bonum et finis; et ad obiectum intellectus, quod est verum. Et quia fides, cum sit virtus theologica, sicut supra dictum est, habet idem pro obiecto et fine, necesse est quod obiectum fidei et finis proportionaliter sibi correspondeant. Dictum est autem supra quod veritas prima est obiectum fidei secundum quod ipsa est non visa et ea quibus propter ipsam inhaeretur. Et secundum hoc oportet quod ipsa veritas prima se habeat ad actum fidei per modum finis secundum rationem rei non visae. Quod pertinet ad rationem rei speratae, secundum illud apostoli, ad Rom. VIII, quod non videmus speramus, veritatem enim videre est ipsam habere; non autem sperat aliquis id quod iam habet, sed spes est de hoc quod non habetur, ut supra dictum est. Sic igitur habitudo actus fidei ad finem, qui est obiectum voluntatis, significatur in hoc quod dicitur, fides est substantia rerum sperandarum. Substantia enim solet dici prima inchoatio cuiuscumque rei, et maxime quando tota res sequens continetur virtute in primo principio, puta si dicamus quod prima principia indemonstrabilia sunt substantia scientiae, quia scilicet primum quod in nobis est de scientia sunt huiusmodi principia, et in eis virtute continetur tota scientia. Per hunc ergo modum dicitur fides esse substantia rerum sperandarum, quia scilicet prima inchoatio rerum sperandarum in nobis est per assensum fidei, quae virtute continet omnes res sperandas. In hoc enim speramus beatificari quod videbimus aperta visione veritatem cui per fidem adhaeremus, ut patet per ea quae supra de felicitate dicta sunt. In order to make this clear, we must observe that since habits are known by their acts, and acts by their objects, faith, being a habit, should be defined by its proper act in relation to its proper object. Now the act of faith is to believe, as stated above (Q. 2, AA. 2, 3), which is an act of the intellect determinate to one object of the will’s command. Hence an act of faith is related both to the object of the will, i.e., to the good and the end, and to the object of the intellect, i.e., to the true. And since faith, through being a theological virtue, as stated above (I-II, Q. 62, A. 2), has one same thing for object and end, its object and end must, of necessity, be in proportion to one another. Now it has been already stated (Q. 1, AA. 1, 4) that the object of faith is the First Truth, as unseen, and whatever we hold on account thereof: so that it must needs be under the aspect of something unseen that the First Truth is the end of the act of faith, which aspect is that of a thing hoped for, according to the Apostle (Rom 8:25): We hope for that which we see not: because to see the truth is to possess it. Now one hopes not for what one has already, but for what one has not, as stated above (I-II, Q. 67, A. 4). Accordingly the relation of the act of faith to its end which is the object of the will, is indicated by the words: Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for. For we are wont to call by the name of substance, the first beginning of a thing, especially when the whole subsequent thing is virtually contained in the first beginning; for instance, we might say that the first self-evident principles are the substance of science, because, to wit, these principles are in us the first beginnings of science, the whole of which is itself contained in them virtually. In this way then faith is said to be the substance of things to be hoped for, for the reason that in us the first beginning of things to be hoped for is brought about by the assent of faith, which contains virtually all things to be hoped for. Because we hope to be made happy through seeing the unveiled truth to which our faith cleaves, as was made evident when we were speaking of happiness (I-II, Q. 3, A. 8; I-II, Q. 4, A. 3). Habitudo autem actus fidei ad obiectum intellectus, secundum quod est obiectum fidei, designatur in hoc quod dicitur, argumentum non apparentium. Et sumitur argumentum pro argumenti effectu, per argumentum enim intellectus inducitur ad adhaerendum alicui vero; unde ipsa firma adhaesio intellectus ad veritatem fidei non apparentem vocatur hic argumentum. Unde alia littera habet convictio, quia scilicet per auctoritatem divinam intellectus credentis convincitur ad assentiendum his quae non videt. Si quis ergo in formam definitionis huiusmodi verba reducere velit, potest dicere quod fides est habitus mentis, qua inchoatur vita aeterna in nobis, faciens intellectum assentire non apparentibus. The relationship of the act of faith to the object of the intellect, considered as the object of faith, is indicated by the words, evidence of things that appear not, where evidence is taken for the result of evidence. For evidence induces the intellect to adhere to a truth, wherefore the firm adhesion of the intellect to the non-apparent truth of faith is called evidence here. Hence another reading has conviction, because to wit, the intellect of the believer is convinced by Divine authority, so as to assent to what it sees not. Accordingly if anyone would reduce the foregoing words to the form of a definition, he may say that faith is a habit of the mind, whereby eternal life is begun in us, making the intellect assent to what is non-apparent. Per hoc autem fides ab omnibus aliis distinguitur quae ad intellectum pertinent. Per hoc enim quod dicitur argumentum, distinguitur fides ab opinione, suspicione et dubitatione, per quae non est prima adhaesio intellectus firma ad aliquid. Per hoc autem quod dicitur non apparentium, distinguitur fides a scientia et intellectu, per quae aliquid fit apparens. Per hoc autem quod dicitur substantia sperandarum rerum, distinguitur virtus fidei a fide communiter sumpta, quae non ordinatur ad beatitudinem speratam. In this way faith is distinguished from all other things pertaining to the intellect. For when we describe it as evidence, we distinguish it from opinion, suspicion, and doubt, which do not make the intellect adhere to anything firmly; when we go on to say, of things that appear not, we distinguish it from science and understanding, the object of which is something apparent; and when we say that it is the substance of things to be hoped for, we distinguish the virtue of faith from faith commonly so called, which has no reference to the beatitude we hope for. Omnes autem aliae definitiones quaecumque de fide dantur, explicationes sunt huius quam apostolus ponit. Quod enim dicit Augustinus, fides est virtus qua creduntur quae non videntur; et quod dicit Damascenus, quod fides est non inquisitus consensus; et quod alii dicunt, quod fides est certitudo quaedam animi de absentibus supra opinionem et infra scientiam; idem est ei quod apostolus dicit, argumentum non apparentium. Quod vero Dionysius dicit, VII cap. de Div. Nom., quod fides est manens credentium fundamentum, collocans eos in veritate et in ipsis veritatem, idem est ei quod dicitur, substantia sperandarum rerum. Whatever other definitions are given of faith, are explanations of this one given by the Apostle. For when Augustine says (Tract. xl in Joan.: QQ. Evang. ii, qu. 39) that faith is a virtue whereby we believe what we do not see, and when Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 11) that faith is an assent without research, and when others say that faith is that certainty of the mind about absent things which surpasses opinion but falls short of science, these all amount to the same as the Apostle’s words: Evidence of things that appear not; and when Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that faith is the solid foundation of the believer, establishing him in the truth, and showing forth the truth in him, comes to the same as substance of things to be hoped for. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod substantia non sumitur hic secundum quod est genus generalissimum contra alia genera divisum, sed secundum quod in quolibet genere invenitur quaedam similitudo substantiae, prout scilicet primum in quolibet genere, continens in se alia virtute, dicitur esse substantia illorum. Reply Obj. 1: Substance here does not stand for the supreme genus condivided with the other genera, but for that likeness to substance which is found in each genus, inasmuch as the first thing in a genus contains the others virtually and is said to be the substance thereof. Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum fides pertineat ad intellectum secundum quod imperatur a voluntate, oportet quod ordinetur, sicut ad finem, ad obiecta illarum virtutum quibus perficitur voluntas. Inter quas est spes, ut infra patebit. Et ideo in definitione fidei ponitur obiectum spei. Reply Obj. 2: Since faith pertains to the intellect as commanded by the will, it must needs be directed, as to its end, to the objects of those virtues which perfect the will, among which is hope, as we shall prove further on (Q. 18, A. 1). For this reason the definition of faith includes the object of hope. Ad tertium dicendum quod dilectio potest esse et visorum et non visorum, et praesentium et absentium. Et ideo res diligenda non ita proprie adaptatur fidei sicut res speranda, cum spes sit semper absentium et non visorum. Reply Obj. 3: Love may be of the seen and of the unseen, of the present and of the absent. Consequently a thing to be loved is not so adapted to faith, as a thing to be hoped for, since hope is always of the absent and the unseen. Ad quartum dicendum quod substantia et argumentum, secundum quod in definitione fidei ponuntur, non important diversa genera fidei neque diversos actus, sed diversas habitudines unius actus ad diversa obiecta, ut ex dictis patet. Reply Obj. 4: Substance and evidence as included in the definition of faith, do not denote various genera of faith, nor different acts, but different relationships of one act to different objects, as is clear from what has been said. Ad quintum dicendum quod argumentum quod sumitur ex propriis principiis rei facit rem esse apparentem. Sed argumentum quod sumitur ex auctoritate divina non facit rem in se esse apparentem. Et tale argumentum ponitur in definitione fidei. Reply Obj. 5: Evidence taken from the proper principles of a thing, make it apparent, whereas evidence taken from Divine authority does not make a thing apparent in itself, and such is the evidence referred to in the definition of faith. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum fides sit in intellectu sicut in subiecto Whether faith resides in the intellect as in a subject? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides non sit in intellectu sicut in subiecto. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Praed. Sanct., quod fides in credentium voluntate consistit. Sed voluntas est alia potentia ab intellectu. Ergo fides non est in intellectu sicut in subiecto. Objection 1: It would seem that faith does not reside in the intellect. For Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. v) that faith resides in the believer’s will. Now the will is a power distinct from the intellect. Therefore faith does not reside in the intellect. Praeterea, assensus fidei ad aliquid credendum provenit ex voluntate Deo obediente. Tota ergo laus fidei ex obedientia esse videtur. Sed obedientia est in voluntate. Ergo et fides. Non ergo est in intellectu. Obj. 2: Further, the assent of faith to believe anything, proceeds from the will obeying God. Therefore it seems that faith owes all its praise to obedience. Now obedience is in the will. Therefore faith is in the will, and not in the intellect. Praeterea, intellectus est vel speculativus vel practicus. Sed fides non est in intellectu speculativo, qui, cum nihil dicat de imitabili et fugiendo, ut dicitur in III de Anima, non est principium operationis, fides autem est quae per dilectionem operatur, ut dicitur ad Gal. V. Similiter etiam nec in intellectu practico, cuius obiectum est verum contingens factibile vel agibile, obiectum enim fidei est verum aeternum, ut ex supradictis patet. Non ergo fides est in intellectu sicut in subiecto. Obj. 3: Further, the intellect is either speculative or practical. Now faith is not in the speculative intellect, since this is not concerned with things to be sought or avoided, as stated in De Anima iii, 9, so that it is not a principle of operation, whereas faith . . . worketh by charity (Gal 5:6). Likewise, neither is it in the practical intellect, the object of which is some true, contingent thing, that can be made or done. For the object of faith is the Eternal Truth, as was shown above (Q. 1, A. 1). Therefore faith does not reside in the intellect. Sed contra est quod fidei succedit visio patriae, secundum illud I ad Cor. XIII, videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Sed visio est in intellectu. Ergo et fides. On the contrary, Faith is succeeded by the heavenly vision, according to 1 Cor. 13:12: We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now vision is in the intellect. Therefore faith is likewise. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum fides sit quaedam virtus, oportet quod actus eius sit perfectus. Ad perfectionem autem actus qui ex duobus activis principiis procedit requiritur quod utrumque activorum principiorum sit perfectum, non enim potest bene secari nisi et secans habeat artem et serra sit bene disposita ad secandum. Dispositio autem ad bene agendum in illis potentiis animae quae se habent ad opposita est habitus, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo oportet quod actus procedens ex duabus talibus potentiis sit perfectus habitu aliquo praeexistente in utraque potentiarum. Dictum est autem supra quod credere est actus intellectus secundum quod movetur a voluntate ad assentiendum, procedit enim huiusmodi actus et a voluntate et ab intellectu. Quorum uterque natus est per habitum perfici, secundum praedicta. Et ideo oportet quod tam in voluntate sit aliquis habitus quam in intellectu, si debeat actus fidei esse perfectus, sicut etiam ad hoc quod actus concupiscibilis sit perfectus, oportet quod sit habitus prudentiae in ratione et habitus temperantiae in concupiscibili. Credere autem est immediate actus intellectus, quia obiectum huius actus est verum, quod proprie pertinet ad intellectum. Et ideo necesse est quod fides, quae est proprium principium huius actus, sit in intellectu sicut in subiecto. I answer that, Since faith is a virtue, its act must needs be perfect. Now, for the perfection of an act proceeding from two active principles, each of these principles must be perfect: for it is not possible for a thing to be sawn well, unless the sawyer possess the art, and the saw be well fitted for sawing. Now, in a power of the soul, which is related to opposite objects, a disposition to act well is a habit, as stated above (I-II, Q. 49, A. 4, ad 1, 2, 3). Wherefore an act that proceeds from two such powers must be perfected by a habit residing in each of them. Again, it has been stated above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2) that to believe is an act of the intellect inasmuch as the will moves it to assent. And this act proceeds from the will and the intellect, both of which have a natural aptitude to be perfected in this way. Consequently, if the act of faith is to be perfect, there needs to be a habit in the will as well as in the intellect: even as there needs to be the habit of prudence in the reason, besides the habit of temperance in the concupiscible faculty, in order that the act of that faculty be perfect. Now, to believe is immediately an act of the intellect, because the object of that act is the true, which pertains properly to the intellect. Consequently faith, which is the proper principle of that act, must needs reside in the intellect. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus fidem accipit pro actu fidei, qui dicitur consistere in credentium voluntate inquantum ex imperio voluntatis intellectus credibilibus assentit. Reply Obj. 1: Augustine takes faith for the act of faith, which is described as depending on the believer’s will, insofar as his intellect assents to matters of faith at the command of the will. Ad secundum dicendum quod non solum oportet voluntatem esse promptam ad obediendum, sed etiam intellectum esse bene dispositum ad sequendum imperium voluntatis, sicut oportet concupiscibilem esse bene dispositam ad sequendum imperium rationis. Et ideo non solum oportet esse habitum virtutis in voluntate imperante, sed etiam in intellectu assentiente. Reply Obj. 2: Not only does the will need to be ready to obey but also the intellect needs to be well disposed to follow the command of the will, even as the concupiscible faculty needs to be well disposed in order to follow the command of reason; hence there needs to be a habit of virtue not only in the commanding will but also in the assenting intellect. Ad tertium dicendum quod fides est in intellectu speculativo sicut in subiecto, ut manifeste patet ex fidei obiecto. Sed quia veritas prima, quae est fidei obiectum, est finis omnium desideriorum et actionum nostrarum, ut patet per Augustinum, in I de Trin.; inde est quod per dilectionem operatur. Sicut etiam intellectus speculativus extensione fit practicus, ut dicitur in III de anima. Reply Obj. 3: Faith resides in the speculative intellect, as evidenced by its object. But since this object, which is the First Truth, is the end of all our desires and actions, as Augustine proves (De Trin. i, 8), it follows that faith worketh by charity just as the speculative intellect becomes practical by extension (De Anima iii, 10). Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum caritas sit forma fidei Whether charity is the form of faith? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non sit forma fidei. Unumquodque enim sortitur speciem per suam formam. Eorum ergo quae ex opposito dividuntur sicut diversae species unius generis, unum non potest esse forma alterius. Sed fides et caritas dividuntur ex opposito, I ad Cor. XIII, sicut diversae species virtutis. Ergo caritas non potest esse forma fidei. Objection 1: It would seem that charity is not the form of faith. For each thing derives its species from its form. When therefore two things are opposite members of a division, one cannot be the form of the other. Now faith and charity are stated to be opposite members of a division, as different species of virtue (1 Cor 13:13). Therefore charity is not the form of faith. Praeterea, forma et id cuius est forma sunt in eodem, quia ex eis fit unum simpliciter. Sed fides est in intellectu, caritas autem in voluntate. Ergo caritas non est forma fidei. Obj. 2: Further, a form and the thing of which it is the form are in one subject, since together they form one simply. Now faith is in the intellect, while charity is in the will. Therefore charity is not the form of faith. Praeterea, forma est principium rei. Sed principium credendi ex parte voluntatis magis videtur esse obedientia quam caritas, secundum illud ad Rom. I, ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus. Ergo obedientia magis est forma fidei quam caritas. Obj. 3: Further, the form of a thing is a principle thereof. Now obedience, rather than charity, seems to be the principle of believing, on the part of the will, according to Rom. 1:5: For obedience to the faith in all nations. Therefore obedience rather than charity, is the form of faith. Sed contra est quod unumquodque operatur per suam formam. Fides autem per dilectionem operatur. Ergo dilectio caritatis est forma fidei. On the contrary, Each thing works through its form. Now faith works through charity. Therefore the love of charity is the form of faith. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex superioribus patet, actus voluntarii speciem recipiunt a fine, qui est voluntatis obiectum. Id autem a quo aliquid speciem sortitur se habet ad modum formae in rebus naturalibus. Et ideo cuiuslibet actus voluntarii forma quodammodo est finis ad quem ordinatur, tum quia ex ipso recipit speciem; tum etiam quia modus actionis oportet quod respondeat proportionaliter fini. Manifestum est autem ex praedictis quod actus fidei ordinatur ad obiectum voluntatis, quod est bonum, sicut ad finem. Hoc autem bonum quod est finis fidei, scilicet bonum divinum, est proprium obiectum caritatis. Et ideo caritas dicitur forma fidei, inquantum per caritatem actus fidei perficitur et formatur. I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (I-II, Q. 1, A. 3; I-II, Q. 18, A. 6), voluntary acts take their species from their end which is the will’s object. Now that which gives a thing its species, is after the manner of a form in natural things. Wherefore the form of any voluntary act is, in a manner, the end to which that act is directed, both because it takes its species therefrom, and because the mode of an action should correspond proportionately to the end. Now it is evident from what has been said (A. 1), that the act of faith is directed to the object of the will, i.e., the good, as to its end: and this good which is the end of faith, viz. the Divine Good, is the proper object of charity. Therefore charity is called the form of faith insofar as the act of faith is perfected and formed by charity. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritas dicitur esse forma fidei inquantum informat actum ipsius. Nihil autem prohibet unum actum a diversis habitibus informari, et secundum hoc ad diversas species reduci ordine quodam, ut supra dictum est, cum de actibus humanis in communi ageretur. Reply Obj. 1: Charity is called the form of faith because it quickens the act of faith. Now nothing hinders one act from being quickened by different habits, so as to be reduced to various species in a certain order, as stated above (I-II, Q. 18, AA. 6, 7; I-II, Q. 61, A. 2) when we were treating of human acts in general. Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de forma intrinseca. Sic autem caritas non est forma fidei, sed prout informat actum eius, ut supra dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: This objection is true of an intrinsic form. But it is not thus that charity is the form of faith, but in the sense that it quickens the act of faith, as explained above. Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam ipsa obedientia, et similiter spes et quaecumque alia virtus posset praecedere actum fidei, formatur a caritate, sicut infra patebit. Et ideo ipsa caritas ponitur forma fidei. Reply Obj. 3: Even obedience, and hope likewise, and whatever other virtue might precede the act of faith, is quickened by charity, as we shall show further on (Q. 23, A. 8), and consequently charity is spoken of as the form of faith. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum fides informis fiat formata, aut e converso Whether lifeless faith can become living, or living faith, lifeless? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides informis non fiat formata, nec e converso. Quia ut dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Sed fides informis est imperfecta respectu formatae. Ergo, adveniente fide formata, fides informis excluditur, ut non sit unus habitus numero. Objection 1: It would seem that lifeless faith does not become living, nor living faith lifeless. For, according to 1 Cor. 13:10, when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. Now lifeless faith is imperfect in comparison with living faith. Therefore when living faith comes, lifeless faith is done away, so that they are not one identical habit. Praeterea, illud quod est mortuum non fit vivum. Sed fides informis est mortua, secundum illud Iac. II, fides sine operibus mortua est. Ergo fides informis non potest fieri formata. Obj. 2: Further, a dead thing does not become a living thing. Now lifeless faith is dead, according to James 2:20: Faith without works is dead. Therefore lifeless faith cannot become living. Praeterea, gratia Dei adveniens non habet minorem effectum in homine fideli quam in infideli. Sed adveniens homini infideli causat in eo habitum fidei. Ergo etiam adveniens fideli qui habebat prius habitum fidei informis causat in eo alium habitum fidei. Obj. 3: Further, God’s grace, by its advent, has no less effect in a believer than in an unbeliever. Now by coming to an unbeliever it causes the habit of faith. Therefore when it comes to a believer, who hitherto had the habit of lifeless faith, it causes another habit of faith in him. Praeterea, sicut Boetius dicit, accidentia alterari non possunt. Sed fides est quoddam accidens. Ergo non potest eadem fides quandoque esse formata et quandoque informis. Obj. 4: Further, as Boethius says (In Categ. Arist. i), accidents cannot be altered. Now faith is an accident. Therefore the same faith cannot be at one time living, and at another, lifeless. Sed contra est quod Iac. II, super illud, fides sine operibus mortua est, dicit Glossa, quibus reviviscit. Ergo fides quae erat prius mortua et informis fit formata et vivens. On the contrary, A gloss on the words, Faith without works is dead (Jas 2:20) adds, by which it lives once more. Therefore faith which was lifeless and without form hitherto, becomes formed and living.