Obj. 2: Further, every part of a moral virtue is about certain pa.s.sions which that virtue moderates. Now perseverance does not imply moderation of the pa.s.sions: since the more violent the pa.s.sions, the more praiseworthy is it to persevere in accordance with reason.
Therefore it seems that perseverance is a part not of a moral virtue, but rather of prudence which perfects the reason.
Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Persev. i) that no one can lose perseverance; whereas one can lose the other virtues. Therefore perseverance is greater than all the other virtues. Now a princ.i.p.al virtue is greater than its part. Therefore perseverance is not a part of a virtue, but is itself a princ.i.p.al virtue.
_On the contrary,_ Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii) reckons perseverance as a part of fort.i.tude.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 123, A. 2; I-II, Q. 61, AA. 3, 4), a princ.i.p.al virtue is one to which is princ.i.p.ally ascribed something that lays claim to the praise of virtue, inasmuch as it practices it in connection with its own matter, wherein it is most difficult of accomplishment. In accordance with this it has been stated (Q. 123, A. 2) that fort.i.tude is a princ.i.p.al virtue, because it observes firmness in matters wherein it is most difficult to stand firm, namely in dangers of death. Wherefore it follows of necessity that every virtue which has a t.i.tle to praise for the firm endurance of something difficult must be annexed to fort.i.tude as secondary to princ.i.p.al virtue. Now the endurance of difficulty arising from delay in accomplishing a good work gives perseverance its claim to praise: nor is this so difficult as to endure dangers of death. Therefore perseverance is annexed to fort.i.tude, as secondary to princ.i.p.al virtue.
Reply Obj. 1: The annexing of secondary to princ.i.p.al virtues depends not only on the matter [*Cf. Q. 136, A. 4, ad 2], but also on the mode, because in everything form is of more account than matter.
Wherefore although, as to matter, perseverance seems to have more in common with temperance than with fort.i.tude, yet, in mode, it has more in common with fort.i.tude, in the point of standing firm against the difficulty arising from length of time.
Reply Obj. 2: The perseverance of which the Philosopher speaks (Ethic. vii, 4, 7) does not moderate any pa.s.sions, but consists merely in a certain firmness of reason and will. But perseverance, considered as a virtue, moderates certain pa.s.sions, namely fear of weariness or failure on account of the delay. Hence this virtue, like fort.i.tude, is in the irascible.
Reply Obj. 3: Augustine speaks there of perseverance, as denoting, not a virtuous habit, but a virtuous act sustained to the end, according to Matt. 24:13, "He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." Hence it is incompatible with such like perseverance for it to be lost, since it would no longer endure to the end.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 137. Art. 3]
Whether Constancy Pertains to Perseverance?
Objection 1: It seems that constancy does not pertain to perseverance. For constancy pertains to patience, as stated above (Q.
137, A. 5): and patience differs from perseverance. Therefore constancy does not pertain to perseverance.
Obj. 2: Further, "virtue is about the difficult and the good." Now it does not seem difficult to be constant in little works, but only in great deeds, which pertain to magnificence. Therefore constancy pertains to magnificence rather than to perseverance.
Obj. 3: Further, if constancy pertained to perseverance, it would seem nowise to differ from it, since both denote a kind of unchangeableness. Yet they differ: for Macrobius (In Somn. Scip. i) condivides constancy with firmness by which he indicates perseverance, as stated above (Q. 128, A. 6). Therefore constancy does not pertain to perseverance.
_On the contrary,_ One is said to be constant because one stands to a thing. Now it belongs to perseverance to stand to certain things, as appears from the definition given by Andronicus. Therefore constancy belongs to perseverance.
_I answer that,_ Perseverance and constancy agree as to end, since it belongs to both to persist firmly in some good: but they differ as to those things which make it difficult to persist in good. Because the virtue of perseverance properly makes man persist firmly in good, against the difficulty that arises from the very continuance of the act: whereas constancy makes him persist firmly in good against difficulties arising from any other external hindrances. Hence perseverance takes precedence of constancy as a part of fort.i.tude, because the difficulty arising from continuance of action is more intrinsic to the act of virtue than that which arises from external obstacles.
Reply Obj. 1: External obstacles to persistence in good are especially those which cause sorrow. Now patience is about sorrow, as stated above (Q. 136, A. 1). Hence constancy agrees with perseverance as to end: while it agrees with patience as to those things which occasion difficulty. Now the end is of most account: wherefore constancy pertains to perseverance rather than to patience.
Reply Obj. 2: It is more difficult to persist in great deeds: yet in little or ordinary deeds, it is difficult to persist for any length of time, if not on account of the greatness of the deed which magnificence considers, yet from its very continuance which perseverance regards. Hence constancy may pertain to both.
Reply Obj. 3: Constancy pertains to perseverance in so far as it has something in common with it: but it is not the same thing in the point of their difference, as stated in the Article.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 137, Art. 4]
Whether Perseverance Needs the Help of Grace?
[*Cf. I-II, Q. 109, A. 10]
Objection 1: It seems that perseverance does not need the help of grace. For perseverance is a virtue, as stated above (A. 1). Now according to Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii) virtue acts after the manner of nature. Therefore the sole inclination of virtue suffices for perseverance. Therefore this does not need the help of grace.
Obj. 2: Further, the gift of Christ"s grace is greater than the harm brought upon us by Adam, as appears from Rom. 5:15, seqq. Now "before sin man was so framed that he could persevere by means of what he had received," as Augustine says (De Correp. et Grat. xi). Much more therefore can man, after being repaired by the grace of Christ, persevere without the help of a further grace.
Obj. 3: Further, sinful deeds are sometimes more difficult than deeds of virtue: hence it is said in the person of the wicked (Wis. 5:7): "We ... have walked through hard ways." Now some persevere in sinful deeds without the help of another. Therefore man can also persevere in deeds of virtue without the help of grace.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Persev. i): "We hold that perseverance is a gift of G.o.d, whereby we persevere unto the end, in Christ."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 2; A. 2, ad 3), perseverance has a twofold signification. First, it denotes the habit of perseverance, considered as a virtue. In this way it needs the gift of habitual grace, even as the other infused virtues. Secondly, it may be taken to denote the act of perseverance enduring until death: and in this sense it needs not only habitual grace, but also the gratuitous help of G.o.d sustaining man in good until the end of life, as stated above (I-II, Q. 109, A. 10), when we were treating of grace. Because, since the free-will is changeable by its very nature, which changeableness is not taken away from it by the habitual grace bestowed in the present life, it is not in the power of the free-will, albeit repaired by grace, to abide unchangeably in good, though it is in its power to choose this: for it is often in our power to choose yet not to accomplish.
Reply Obj. 1: The virtue of perseverance, so far as it is concerned, inclines one to persevere: yet since it is a habit, and a habit is a thing one uses at will, it does not follow that a person who has the habit of virtue uses it unchangeably until death.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Correp. et Grat. xi), "it was given to the first man, not to persevere, but to be able to persevere of his free-will: because then no corruption was in human nature to make perseverance difficult. Now, however, by the grace of Christ, the predestined receive not only the possibility of persevering, but perseverance itself. Wherefore the first man whom no man threatened, of his own free-will rebelling against a threatening G.o.d, forfeited so great a happiness and so great a facility of avoiding sin: whereas these, although the world rage against their constancy, have persevered in faith."
Reply Obj. 3: Man is able by himself to fall into sin, but he cannot by himself arise from sin without the help of grace. Hence by falling into sin, so far as he is concerned man makes himself to be persevering in sin, unless he be delivered by G.o.d"s grace. On the other hand, by doing good he does not make himself to be persevering in good, because he is able, by himself, to sin: wherefore he needs the help of grace for that end.
_______________________
QUESTION 138
OF THE VICES OPPOSED TO PERSEVERANCE (In Two Articles)
We must now consider the vices opposed to perseverance; under which head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Of effeminacy;
(2) Of pertinacity.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 138, Art. 1]
Whether Effeminacy* Is Opposed to Perseverance?
[* _Mollities,_ literally "softness"]
Objection 1: It seems that effeminacy is not opposed to perseverance.
For a gloss on 1 Cor. 6:9, 10, "Nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind," expounds the text thus: "Effeminate--i.e.
obscene, given to unnatural vice." But this is opposed to chast.i.ty.
Therefore effeminacy is not a vice opposed to perseverance.
Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "delicacy is a kind of effeminacy." But to be delicate seems akin to intemperance. Therefore effeminacy is not opposed to perseverance but to temperance.
Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "the man who is fond of amus.e.m.e.nt is effeminate." Now immoderate fondness of amus.e.m.e.nt is opposed to _eutrapelia_, which is the virtue about pleasures of play, as stated in _Ethic._ iv, 8. Therefore effeminacy is not opposed to perseverance.
_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "the persevering man is opposed to the effeminate."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 137, AA. 1, 2), perseverance is deserving of praise because thereby a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance of difficulties and toils: and it is directly opposed to this, seemingly, for a man to be ready to forsake a good on account of difficulties which he cannot endure. This is what we understand by effeminacy, because a thing is said to be "soft" if it readily yields to the touch. Now a thing is not declared to be soft through yielding to a heavy blow, for walls yield to the battering-ram. Wherefore a man is not said to be effeminate if he yields to heavy blows. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is no wonder, if a person is overcome by strong and overwhelming pleasures or sorrows; but he is to be pardoned if he struggles against them." Now it is evident that fear of danger is more impelling than the desire of pleasure: wherefore Tully says (De Offic. i) under the heading "True magnanimity consists of two things": "It is inconsistent for one who is not cast down by fear, to be defeated by l.u.s.t, or who has proved himself unbeaten by toil, to yield to pleasure." Moreover, pleasure itself is a stronger motive of attraction than sorrow, for the lack of pleasure is a motive of withdrawal, since lack of pleasure is a pure privation. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 7), properly speaking an effeminate man is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion.
Reply Obj. 1: This effeminacy is caused in two ways. In one way, by custom: for where a man is accustomed to enjoy pleasures, it is more difficult for him to endure the lack of them. In another way, by natural disposition, because, to wit, his mind is less persevering through the frailty of his temperament. This is how women are compared to men, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7): wherefore those who are pa.s.sively sodomitical are said to be effeminate, being womanish themselves, as it were.
Reply Obj. 2: Toil is opposed to bodily pleasure: wherefore it is only toilsome things that are a hindrance to pleasures. Now the delicate are those who cannot endure toils, nor anything that diminishes pleasure. Hence it is written (Deut. 28:56): "The tender and delicate woman, that could not go upon the ground, nor set down her foot for ... softness [Douay: "niceness"]." Thus delicacy is a kind of effeminacy. But properly speaking effeminacy regards lack of pleasures, while delicacy regards the cause that hinders pleasure, for instance toil or the like.
Reply Obj. 3: In play two things may be considered. In the first place there is the pleasure, and thus inordinate fondness of play is opposed to _eutrapelia_. Secondly, we may consider the relaxation or rest which is opposed to toil. Accordingly just as it belongs to effeminacy to be unable to endure toilsome things, so too it belongs thereto to desire play or any other relaxation inordinately.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 138, Art. 2]
Whether Pertinacity Is Opposed to Perseverance?