Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q140. The precepts of fortitude
Source context
- Theme
- Precepts commanding and directing the virtue of fortitude in moral action
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IIIAristotle's account of andreia (courage) as the mean between cowardice and rashness, regulated by right reason, provides the structural antecedent Aquinas formalizes into precept-form in Q140.
- Stoic ethicsThe Stoic categorization of fortitude (fortitudo) as one of the four cardinal virtues, binding the will to endure hardship for the good, exhibits cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's precept that fortitude must be commanded rather than merely counseled.
Q140. The precepts of fortitude
Article 1
[II-II.q.140.a.1.arg.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 (Deuteronomy 20). Therefore precepts of fortitude should have been given in the New Law also.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non convenienter in lege divina præcepta fortitudinis tradantur. Lex enim nova perfectior est veteri lege. Sed in veteri lege ponuntur aliqua præcepta fortitudinis, ut patet Deut., xx. Ergo et in nova lege aliqua præcepta fortitudinis danda fuerunt.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.arg.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.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, præcepta affirmativa videntur esse potiora præceptis negativis, quia affirmativa includunt negativa, sed non e converso. Inconvenienter ergo in lege divina ponuntur præcepta fortitudinis solum negativa timorem prohibentia.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.arg.3] Further, fortitude is one of the principal virtues, as stated above (123, 2; I-II, 61, 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.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, fortitudo est una de virtutibus principalibus, ut supra habitum est. Sed præcepta ordinantur ad virtutes sicut ad fines: unde debent eis proportionari. Ergo præcepta fortitudinis debuerunt poni inter præcepta Decalogi, quæ sunt principalia legis præcepta. Sed contrarium apparet ex traditione sacræ Scripturæ.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.sc] stands Holy Writ which contains these precepts.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.co] 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 (Deuteronomy 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."
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.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod præcepta legis ordinantur ad intentionem legislatoris. Unde secundum diversos fines quos intendit legislator, oportet diversimode præcepta legis institui: unde et in rebus humanis alia sunt præcepta democratica, alia regia, alia tyrannica. Finis autem legis divinæ est ut homo inhæreat Deo: et ideo præcepta legis divinæ tam de fortitudine quam de aliis virtutibus dantur, secundum quod convenit ordinationi mentis in Deum: et propter hoc Deuter., xx, 3, dicitur: Non * formidetis eos, quia Dominus Deus vester in medio vestri est, et pro vobis contra adversarios dimica-bit. Leges autem humanæ ordinantur ad aliqua mundana bona, secundum quorum conditionem præcepta fortitudinis in humanis legibus inveniuntur.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.ad.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 Matthew 11:12, "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away." Hence Peter commands (1 Peter 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 Matthew 10:28, "Fear ye not them that kill the body."
[II-II.q.140.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod vetus Testamentum habebat temporalia promissa, novum autem spiritualia et æterna, ut Augustinus dicit Contra Faust., lib. IV, c. 11, col. 217, t. 8. Et ideo necessarium fuit ut in veteri lege populus instrueretur, qualiter pugnare deberet etiam corporaliter pro terrena possessione acquirenda; in novo autem Testamento instruendi fuerunt homines, qualiter spiritualiter certando ad possessionem vitæ æternæ pervenirent, secundum illud Matth., xi, 12: Regnum cælorum vim patitur, et violenti rapiunt illud. Unde et Petrus præcipit, I Pet., ult., 8: Adversarius vester diabolus tanquam leo rugiens, circuit quærens quem devoret: cui resistite fortes in fide; et Jacobi iv, 7: Resistite diabolo, et fugiet a vobis. Quia tamen homines ad spiritualia bona ten-dentes, ab eis retrahi possent per corporalia pericula, fuerunt etiam in lege nova danda fortitudinis præcepta ad sustinenda fortiter temporalia mala, secundum illud Matth., x, 28: Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.ad.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.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod lex in suis præceptis habet communem instructionem. Ea vero quæ sunt agenda in periculis, non possunt ad aliquod commune bonum reduci, sicut ea quæ sunt vitanda. Et ideo præcepta fortitudinis magis dantur negative quam affirmative.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.ad.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.
[II-II.q.140.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, præcepta Decalogi ponuntur in lege, sicut prima principia, quæ statim debent esse omnibus nota. Et ideo præcepta Decalogi debuerunt esse principaliter de actibus justitiæ, in quibus manifeste videtur esse ratio debiti; non autem de actibus fortitudinis, quia non ita manifeste videtur esse debitum quod aliquis pericula mortis non reformidet.
Article 2
[II-II.q.140.a.2.arg.1] 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 (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.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod inconvenienter tradantur præcepta 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 præcepta tradita in lege divina. Similiter etiam et de perseverantia. Ergo pari ratione de magnificentia et magnanimitate aliqua præcepta tradi debuerunt.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.arg.2] 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.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, patientia est virtus maxime necessaria, cum sit custos aliarum virtutum, ut Gregorius dicit, Hom. xxxv sup. Evang. §4, col. 1261, t. 2, Sed de aliis virtutibus dantur absolute præcepta. Non ergo de patientia fuerunt danda præcepta quæ intelliguntur solum secundum præparationem animi, ut Augustinus dicit in lib. I De serm. Dom. in monte, cap. xix, col. 1257, t. 3.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.arg.3] Objection 3. Further, patience and perseverance are parts of fortitude, as stated above (128; 136, 4; 137, 2). Now the precepts of fortitude are not affirmative but only negative, as stated above (1, ad 2). Therefore the precepts of patience and perseverance should have been negative and not affirmative.
The contrary, however, follows from the way in which they are given by Holy Writ.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, patientia et perseverantia sunt partes fortitudinis, ut dictum est. Sed de fortitudine non dantur præcepta affirmativa, sed solum negativa, ut supra habitum est. Ergo etiam neque de patientia et perseverantia fuerunt danda præcepta affirmativa, sed solum negativa. Sed contrarium habetur ex traditione sacræ Scripturæ.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.co] 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.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod lex divina perfecte informat hominem de his quæ sunt necessaria ad recte vivendum. Indiget autem homo ad recte vivendum, non solum virtutibus principalibus, sed etiam virtutibus secundariis et adjunctis; et ideo in lege divina sicut dantur convenientia præcepta de actibus virtutum principalium, ita etiam dantur convenientia præcepta de actibus secundariarum virtutum et adjunctarum.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.ad.1] 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.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod magnificentia et magnanimitas non pertinent ad genus fortitudinis, nisi secundum quamdam magnitudinis excellentiam, quam circa propriam materiam considerant. Ea autem quæ pertinent ad excellentiam, magis cadunt sub consiliis perfectionis quam sub præceptis necessitatis. Et ideo de magnificentia et de magnanimitate non fuerunt danda præcepta, sed magis consilia. Afflictiones autem et labores præsentis vitæ pertinent ad patientiam et perseverantiam, non ratione alicujus magnitudinis in eis consideratæ, sed ratione ipsius generis. Et ideo de patientia et perseverantia fuerunt danda præcepta.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.ad.2] 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.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, præcepta affirmativa etsi semper obligent, non tamen obligant ad semper, sed pro loco et tempore. Et ideo sicut præcepta affirmativa quæ de aliis virtutibus dantur 1 sunt accipienda secundum præparationem animi, ut sciicet homo sit paratus ea adimplere, cum opus fuerit, ita etiam præcepta patientiae.
[II-II.q.140.a.2.ad.3] 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.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[II-II.q.140.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod fortitudo, secundum quod distinguitur a patientia et perseverantia, est circa maxima pericula, in quibus est cautius agendum; nec oportet aliquid determinari in particulari quod sit faciendum. Sed patientia et perseverantia sunt circa minores afflictiones et labores; et ideo magis sine periculo potest in eis determinari quod sit agendum, maxime in universali.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q140.json