Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts do not differ from the virtues. For Gregory commenting on Job 1:2, "There were born to him seven sons," says (Moral. i, 12): "Seven sons were born to us, when through the conception of heavenly thought, the seven virtues of the Holy Ghost take birth in us": and he quotes the words of Is. 11:2,3: "And the Spirit . . . of understanding . . . shall rest upon him," etc. where the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are enumerated. Therefore the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are virtues.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine commenting on Mt. 12:45, "Then he goeth and taketh with him seven other spirits," etc., says (De Quaest. Evang. i, qu. 8): "The seven vices are opposed to the seven virtues of the Holy Ghost," i.e. to the seven gifts. Now the seven vices are opposed to the seven virtues, commonly so called. Therefore the gifts do not differ from the virtues commonly so called.

Objection 3: Further, things whose definitions are the same, are themselves the same. But the definition of virtue applies to the gifts; for each gift is "a good quality of the mind, whereby we lead a good life," etc. . Likewise the definition of a gift can apply to the infused virtues: for a gift is "an unreturnable giving," according to the Philosopher (Topic. iv, 4). Therefore the virtues and gifts do not differ from one another.

Objection 4: Several of the things mentioned among the gifts, are virtues: for, as stated above (Question 57, Article 2), wisdom, understanding, and knowledge are intellectual virtues, counsel pertains to prudence, piety to a kind of justice, and fortitude is a moral virtue. Therefore it seems that the gifts do not differ from the virtues.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. i, 12) distinguishes seven gifts, which he states to be denoted by the seven sons of Job, from the three theological virtues, which, he says, are signified by Job's three daughters. He also distinguishes (Moral. ii, 26) the same seven gifts from the four cardinal virtues, which he says were signified by the four corners of the house.

I answer that, If we speak of gift and virtue with regard to the notion conveyed by the words themselves, there is no opposition between them. Because the word "virtue" conveys the notion that it perfects man in relation to well-doing, while the word "gift" refers to the cause from which it proceeds. Now there is no reason why that which proceeds from one as a gift should not perfect another in well-doing: especially as we have already stated (Question 63, Article 3) that some virtues are infused into us by God. Wherefore in this respect we cannot differentiate gifts from virtues. Consequently some have held that the gifts are not to be distinguished from the virtues. But there remains no less a difficulty for them to solve; for they must explain why some virtues are called gifts and some not; and why among the gifts there are some, fear, for instance, that are not reckoned virtues.

Hence it is that others have said that the gifts should be held as being distinct from the virtues; yet they have not assigned a suitable reason for this distinction, a reason, to wit, which would apply either to all the virtues, and to none of the gifts, or vice versa. For, seeing that of the seven gifts, four belong to the reason, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding and counsel, and three to the appetite, viz. fortitude, piety and fear; they held that the gifts perfect the free-will according as it is a faculty of the reason, while the virtues perfect it as a faculty of the will: since they observed only two virtues in the reason or intellect, viz. faith and prudence, the others being in the appetitive power or the affections. If this distinction were true, all the virtues would have to be in the appetite, and all the gifts in the reason.

Others observing that Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the gift of the Holy Ghost, by coming into the soul endows it with prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, and at the same time strengthens it against every kind of temptation by His sevenfold gift," said that the virtues are given us that we may do good works, and the gifts, that we may resist temptation. But neither is this distinction sufficient. Because the virtues also resist those temptations which lead to the sins that are contrary to the virtues; for everything naturally resists its contrary: which is especially clear with regard to charity, of which it is written (Cant 8:7): "Many waters cannot quench charity."

Others again, seeing that these gifts are set down in Holy Writ as having been in Christ, according to Is. 11:2,3, said that the virtues are given simply that we may do good works, but the gifts, in order to conform us to Christ, chiefly with regard to His Passion, for it was then that these gifts shone with the greatest splendor. Yet neither does this appear to be a satisfactory distinction. Because Our Lord Himself wished us to be conformed to Him, chiefly in humility and meekness, according to Mt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart," and in charity, according to Jn. 15:12: "Love one another, as I have loved you." Moreover, these virtues were especially resplendent in Christ's Passion.

Accordingly, in order to differentiate the gifts from the virtues, we must be guided by the way in which Scripture expresses itself, for we find there that the term employed is "spirit" rather than "gift." For thus it is written (Is. 11:2,3): "The spirit . . . of wisdom and of understanding . . . shall rest upon him," etc.: from which words we are clearly given to understand that these seven are there set down as being in us by Divine inspiration. Now inspiration denotes motion from without. For it must be noted that in man there is a twofold principle of movement, one within him, viz. the reason; the other extrinsic to him, viz. God, as stated above (Question 9, Articles 4,6): moreover the Philosopher says this in the chapter On Good Fortune (Ethic. Eudem. vii, 8).

Now it is evident that whatever is moved must be proportionate to its mover: and the perfection of the mobile as such, consists in a disposition whereby it is disposed to be well moved by its mover. Hence the more exalted the mover, the more perfect must be the disposition whereby the mobile is made proportionate to its mover: thus we see that a disciple needs a more perfect disposition in order to receive a higher teaching from his master. Now it is manifest that human virtues perfect man according as it is natural for him to be moved by his reason in his interior and exterior actions. Consequently man needs yet higher perfections, whereby to be disposed to be moved by God. These perfections are called gifts, not only because they are infused by God, but also because by them man is disposed to become amenable to the Divine inspiration, according to Is. 50:5: "The Lord . . . hath opened my ear, and I do not resist; I have not gone back." Even the Philosopher says in the chapter On Good Fortune (Ethic. Eudem., vii, 8) that for those who are moved by Divine instinct, there is no need to take counsel according to human reason, but only to follow their inner promptings, since they are moved by a principle higher than human reason. This then is what some say, viz. that the gifts perfect man for acts which are higher than acts of virtue.

Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes these gifts are called virtues, in the broad sense of the word. Nevertheless, they have something over and above the virtues understood in this broad way, in so far as they are Divine virtues, perfecting man as moved by God. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1) above virtue commonly so called, places a kind of "heroic" or "divine virtue ," in respect of which some men are called "divine."

Reply to Objection 2: The vices are opposed to the virtues, in so far as they are opposed to the good as appointed by reason; but they are opposed to the gifts, in as much as they are opposed to the Divine instinct. For the same thing is opposed both to God and to reason, whose light flows from God.

Reply to Objection 3: This definition applies to virtue taken in its general sense. Consequently, if we wish to restrict it to virtue as distinguished from the gifts, we must explain the words, "whereby we lead a good life" as referring to the rectitude of life which is measured by the rule of reason. Likewise the gifts, as distinct from infused virtue, may be defined as something given by God in relation to His motion; something, to wit, that makes man to follow well the promptings of God.

Reply to Objection 4: Wisdom is called an intellectual virtue, so far as it proceeds from the judgment of reason: but it is called a gift, according as its work proceeds from the Divine prompting. The same applies to the other virtues.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dona non distinguantur a virtutibus.

Dicit enim Gregorius, in I Moral., exponens illud iob, nati sunt ei septem filii, septem nobis nascuntur filii, cum per conceptionem bonae cogitationis, sancti spiritus septem in nobis virtutes oriuntur.

Et inducit illud quod habetur Isaiae XI, requiescet super eum spiritus intellectus etc., ubi enumerantur septem spiritus sancti dona.

Ergo septem dona spiritus sancti sunt virtutes.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaestionib. Evang., exponens illud quod habetur Matth. XII, tunc vadit, et assumit septem alios spiritus etc., septem vitia sunt contraria septem virtutibus spiritus sancti, idest septem donis. Sunt autem septem vitia contraria virtutibus communiter dictis. Ergo dona non distinguuntur a virtutibus communiter dictis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quorum est definitio eadem, ipsa quoque sunt eadem.

Sed definitio virtutis convenit donis, unumquodque enim donum est bona qualitas mentis qua recte vivitur, etc..

Similiter definitio doni convenit virtutibus infusis, est enim donum datio irreddibilis, secundum philosophum.

Ergo virtutes et dona non distinguuntur.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, plura eorum quae enumerantur inter dona, sunt virtutes. Nam sicut supra dictum est, sapientia et intellectus et scientia sunt virtutes intellectuales; consilium autem ad prudentiam pertinet; pietas autem species est iustitiae; fortitudo autem quaedam virtus est moralis. Ergo videtur quod virtutes non distinguantur a donis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Gregorius, I Moral., distinguit septem dona, quae dicit significari per septem filios iob, a tribus virtutibus theologicis, quas dicit significari per tres filias iob.

Et in II Moral., distinguit eadem septem dona a quatuor virtutibus cardinalibus, quae dicit significari per quatuor angulos domus.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, si loquamur de dono et virtute secundum nominis rationem, sic nullam oppositionem habent ad invicem. Nam ratio virtutis sumitur secundum quod perficit hominem ad bene agendum, ut supra dictum est, ratio autem doni sumitur secundum comparationem ad causam a qua est. Nihil autem prohibet illud quod est ab alio ut donum, esse perfectivum alicuius ad bene operandum, praesertim cum supra dixerimus quod virtutes quaedam nobis sunt infusae a deo. Unde secundum hoc, donum a virtute distingui non potest. Et ideo quidam posuerunt quod dona non essent a virtutibus distinguenda.

Sed eis remanet non minor difficultas, ut scilicet rationem assignent quare quaedam virtutes dicantur dona, et non omnes; et quare aliqua computantur inter dona, quae non computantur inter virtutes, ut patet de timore.

Unde alii dixerunt dona a virtutibus esse distinguenda; sed non assignaverunt convenientem distinctionis causam, quae scilicet ita communis esset virtutibus, quod nullo modo donis, aut e converso.

Considerantes enim aliqui quod, inter septem dona, quatuor pertinent ad rationem, scilicet sapientia scientia, intellectus et consilium; et tria ad vim appetitivam, scilicet fortitudo, pietas et timor; posuerunt quod dona perficiebant liberum arbitrium secundum quod est facultas rationis, virtutes vero secundum quod est facultas voluntatis, quia invenerunt duas solas virtutes in ratione vel intellectu, scilicet fidem et prudentiam, alias vero in VI appetitiva vel affectiva.

Oporteret autem, si haec distinctio esset conveniens, quod omnes virtutes essent in VI appetitiva, et omnia dona in ratione.

Quidam vero, considerantes quod Gregorius dicit, in II Moral., quod donum spiritus sancti, quod in mente sibi subiecta format temperantiam, prudentiam, iustitiam et fortitudinem; eandem mentem munit contra singula tentamenta per septem dona, dixerunt quod virtutes ordinantur ad bene operandum, dona vero ad resistendum tentationibus.

Sed nec ista distinctio sufficit. Quia etiam virtutes tentationibus resistunt, inducentibus ad peccata, quae contrariantur virtutibus, unumquodque enim resistit naturaliter suo contrario. Quod praecipue patet de caritate, de qua dicitur Cantic. VIII, aquae multae non potuerunt extinguere caritatem.

Alii vero, considerantes quod ista dona traduntur in Scriptura secundum quod fuerunt in christo, ut patet Isaiae XI; dixerunt quod virtutes ordinantur simpliciter ad bene operandum; sed dona ordinantur ad hoc ut per ea conformemur christo, praecipue quantum ad ea quae passus est, quia in passione eius praecipue huiusmodi dona resplenduerunt.

Sed hoc etiam non videtur esse sufficiens. Quia ipse dominus praecipue nos inducit ad sui conformitatem secundum humilitatem et mansuetudinem, Matth. XI, discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde; et secundum caritatem, ut Ioan. XV, diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos.

Et hae etiam virtutes praecipue in passione christi refulserunt.

Et ideo ad distinguendum dona a virtutibus, debemus sequi modum loquendi Scripturae, in qua nobis traduntur non quidem sub nomine donorum, sed magis sub nomine spirituum, sic enim dicitur Isaiae XI, requiescet super eum spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, etc..

Ex quibus verbis manifeste datur intelligi quod ista septem enumerantur ibi, secundum quod sunt in nobis ab inspiratione divina. Inspiratio autem significat quandam motionem ab exteriori.

Est enim considerandum quod in homine est duplex principium movens, unum quidem interius, quod est ratio; aliud autem exterius, quod est deus, ut supra dictum est; et etiam philosophus hoc dicit, in cap. De bona fortuna.

Manifestum est autem quod omne quod movetur, necesse est proportionatum esse motori, et haec est perfectio mobilis inquantum est mobile, dispositio qua disponitur ad hoc quod bene moveatur a suo motore. Quanto igitur movens est altior, tanto necesse est quod mobile perfectiori dispositione ei proportionetur, sicut videmus quod perfectius oportet esse discipulum dispositum, ad hoc quod altiorem doctrinam capiat a docente. Manifestum est autem quod virtutes humanae perficiunt hominem secundum quod homo natus est moveri per rationem in his quae interius vel exterius agit. Oportet igitur inesse homini altiores perfectiones, secundum quas sit dispositus ad hoc quod divinitus moveatur. Et istae perfectiones vocantur dona, non solum quia infunduntur a deo; sed quia secundum ea homo disponitur ut efficiatur prompte mobilis ab inspiratione divina, sicut dicitur Isaiae L, dominus aperuit mihi aurem; ego autem non contradico, retrorsum non abii.

Et philosophus etiam dicit, in cap. De bona fortuna, quod his qui moventur per instinctum divinum, non expedit consiliari secundum rationem humanam, sed quod sequantur interiorem instinctum, quia moventur a meliori principio quam sit ratio humana.

Et hoc est quod quidam dicunt, quod dona perficiunt hominem ad altiores actus quam sint actus virtutum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod huiusmodi dona nominantur quandoque virtutes, secundum communem rationem virtutis.

Habent tamen aliquid supereminens rationi communi virtutis, inquantum sunt quaedam divinae virtutes, perficientes hominem inquantum est a deo motus.

Unde et philosophus, in VII ethic., supra virtutem communem ponit quandam virtutem heroicam vel divinam, secundum quam dicuntur aliqui divini viri.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod vitia, inquantum sunt contra bonum rationis, contrariantur virtutibus, inquantum autem sunt contra divinum instinctum, contrariantur donis. Idem enim contrariatur deo et rationi, cuius lumen a deo derivatur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod definitio illa datur de virtute secundum communem modum virtutis. Unde si volumus definitionem restringere ad virtutes prout distinguuntur a donis, dicemus quod hoc quod dicitur, qua recte vivitur, intelligendum est de rectitudine vitae quae accipitur secundum regulam rationis. Similiter autem donum, prout distinguitur a virtute infusa, potest dici id quod datur a deo in ordine ad motionem ipsius; quod scilicet facit hominem bene sequentem suos instinctus.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod sapientia dicitur intellectualis virtus, secundum quod procedit ex iudicio rationis, dicitur autem donum, secundum quod operatur ex instinctu divino.

Et similiter dicendum est de aliis.