Bonaventure

Quaestio III. Utrum timor gratuitus in patria maneat, an evacuetur.

Tertio quaeritur de timore gratuito quantum ad evacuationem, et quaeritur, utrum in patria maneat, an evacuetur. Et quod maneat, videtur:

1. Per illud Psalmi¹: Timor Domini sanctus permanet in saeculum saeculi: si ergo in saeculum saeculi permanet, non ergo evacuatur, adveniente beatitudine.

2. Item, Isaiae undecimo² dicitur de Christo:

Requiescet super eum spiritus timoris Domini: si ergo Christus fuit perfectissimus comprehensor, et in eo fuit timor; videtur, quod donum timoris non evacuetur.

3. Item, Ecclesiasticus³: Nihil melius quam timere Deum; et primo eiusdem: Plenitudo sapientiae timor Domini: si ergo omne bonum perfectum, et maxime plenitudo sapientiae, erit in summa beatitudine; videtur, quod donum timoris nullo modo habeat evacuari.

4. Item, sicut summae Bonitati debetur summus amor, sic summae Maiestati debetur summus timor, secundum illud Malachiae primo⁴: Si ego Dominus, ubi est timor meus? sed in patria exsolvemus Deo omnia quae debemus: si ergo ibi erit amor summae Bonitatis, videtur etiam, quod ibi sit timor summae Maiestatis.

Sed contra: 1. Tanta, vel maior est perfectio in spe, quanta est in timore; sed spes evacuabitur in patria, sicut dictum est supra⁵: ergo et timor.

2. Item, sicut spes est respectu futuri boni, sic timor est respectu futuri mali⁶; sed in patria nec erit aliquod malum futurum nec poterit esse: ergo ibi nullus erit timor.

3. Item, sicut dicit Augustinus super illud Ioannis decimo⁷: Mercenarius fugit etc.: « Timor est fuga animi, ne amittat quod amat »; sed in patria nullo modo erit huiusmodi fuga nec possibilitas ad amissionem boni: ergo nullus erit ibi timor.

4. Item, sicut paci opponitur inquietudo, sic securitati opponitur timor: ergo sicut ubi est summa pax, ibi⁸ nulla est inquietudo, sic ubi erit summa securitas, ibi nullus timor; sed hoc erit in patria: ergo etc.

5. Item, cum triplex sit differentia timoris-doni, videlicet servilis, initialis et filialis; servilis non manet, quia expellitur a gratia; initialis non, quia expellitur a caritate perfecta; filialis non, quia timet, ne oculos Patris offendat: ergo non videtur, quod timor secundum aliquam sui differentiam maneat in patria.

6. Item, plus excedit perfectio gloriae ipsum timorem filialem, quam excedat perfectio caritatis ipsum timorem initialem; sed timor initialis non stat cum caritate perfecta, ut ostensum fuit supra⁹: ergo nec timor filialis cum gloria. Nec est alia differentia timoris, quae ibi remaneat: ergo donum timoris simpliciter evacuabitur in patria.

Conclusio. Donum timoris in patria quoad unum tantum actum non evacuatur, sed salvatur et perficitur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum fuit in praecedentibus¹⁰, timoris est intueri tria, videlicet poenam, ut fugiat; offensam, ut illam caveat; Maiestatem summam, ut illi subiaceat exhibendo reverentiam. Et secundum hoc triplex est doni timoris differentia: unus, qui principaliter aspicit poenam, et iste est servilis; alius vero, qui unum oculum habet ad poenam, sed tamen principaliorem habet ad offensam vitandam, et hic est initialis; tertius autem, qui unum oculum habet respectu offensae vitandae, alium vero respectu reverentiae exhibendae, et hic est filialis; cuius etsi unus usus sit in refugiendo, ne separetur a Deo, alter excellentior et magis praecipuus est in reverendo Deum, resiliendo a summa Maiestate in propriam parvitatem. Et hic quidem usus fuit in Christo et est in sanctis Angelis et erit in omnibus Beatis¹¹. — Et quantum ad istum oculum et usum manet donum timoris in patria; quantum vero ad alios inferiores tollitur, quia isti competunt ei secundum statum imperfectionis. Quia vero remanet ei usus principalis, hinc est, quod non dicitur evacuari, sed magis perfici et salvari. — Unde et rationes, quae hoc probant, possunt concedi.

Ad argumenta pro parte negativa (Solutio oppositorum): Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod aeque nobilis est spes sicut timor; dicendum, quod verum est de timore quantum ad aliquem eius usum, qui quidem consistit in fuga mali, secundum quem modum timor et spes habent ad invicem dividi¹²; et quantum ad hunc usum verum

est, quod in patria non manebit, sicut nec spes. Est et alius eius usus, qui est revereri summam Maiestatem resiliendo in propriam parvitatem; et quantum ad hunc timor non ita opponitur statui gloriae, sicut spes; et ideo non oportet, quod evacuetur in patria. Quantum enim ad hunc usum maior reperitur excellentia in timore quam in spe, quia minus dissonat statui gloriae¹³.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut spes est respectu futuri boni, sic timor respectu futuri mali; iam patet responsio: quia ratio ista non procedit de timore generaliter, qui est respectu summi ardui¹⁴, sed quantum ad illum usum, quem habet in praesenti respectu mali.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Augustini, dicendum similiter, quod illa non est generalis definitio timoris, sed solum datur de timore secundum usum et statum viae, et hoc non secundum omnem, sicut praetactum est.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut paci opponitur inquietudo, sic securitati timor; dicendum, quod si hoc intelligatur de timore separationis, veritatem habet; sed si intelligatur de timore reverentiae, non habet veritatem, quia reverentia et securitas nullatenus opponuntur.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nulla differentia timoris manebit in patria; breviter respondeo, quod immo timor filialis remanebit. Nec valet quod obiicit, quod ibi non erit timor separationis, vel offensae. Nam etsi filialis timor hoc intueatur aliquo modo, aliud tamen intuetur magis principaliter.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod perfectio gloriae plus excedit timorem filialem, quam caritas perfecta initialem; dicendum, quod maior excessus et minor non facit habitum evacuari, sed potius perfici et consummari, sed oppositio aliqua, quae est reperta inter illud quod evacuat et expellit, et illud quod evacuatur et expellitur¹⁵. Ideo ratio illa non valet, quoniam, etsi perfectio gloriae plus excedat timorem filialem, quam caritas viae initialem: tamen timor initialis ratione eius quod oculum habet ad poenam, plus opponitur perfectioni caritatis, quam timor reverentiae opponatur perfectioni beatitudinis¹⁶.

---

Question III. Whether gratuitous fear remains in the fatherland, or is done away.

Thirdly it is asked concerning gratuitous fear as to its being done away, and it is asked whether it remains in the fatherland or is done away. And that it remains is shown thus:

1. By that of the Psalm¹: The holy fear of the Lord remains for ever and ever: if therefore it remains for ever and ever, it is not then done away when blessedness comes.

2. Likewise, in Isaiah eleven² it is said of Christ:

The spirit of the fear of the Lord shall rest upon him: if therefore Christ was the most perfect comprehender, and in him there was fear; it seems that the gift of fear is not done away.

3. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus³: There is nothing better than to fear God; and in the first [chapter] of the same: The fullness of wisdom is to fear the Lord: if therefore every perfect good, and most of all the fullness of wisdom, will be in supreme blessedness; it seems that the gift of fear is in no way to be done away.

4. Likewise, just as to the supreme Goodness supreme love is owed, so to the supreme Majesty supreme fear is owed, according to that of Malachi one⁴: If I am Lord, where is my fear? but in the fatherland we shall render to God all that we owe: if therefore there will be love of the supreme Goodness there, it seems also that there is fear of the supreme Majesty there.

On the contrary: 1. As great, or greater, is the perfection in hope as is in fear; but hope will be done away in the fatherland, as was said above⁵: therefore fear also.

2. Likewise, just as hope is in respect of a future good, so fear is in respect of a future evil⁶; but in the fatherland there neither will be any future evil nor can there be: therefore there will be no fear there.

3. Likewise, as Augustine says upon that of John ten⁷: The hireling flees etc.: « Fear is a flight of the soul, lest it lose what it loves »; but in the fatherland there will in no way be such a flight nor a possibility of the loss of the good: therefore there will be no fear there.

4. Likewise, just as disquiet is opposed to peace, so fear is opposed to security: therefore just as where there is supreme peace, there⁸ is no disquiet, so where there will be supreme security, there is no fear; but this will be in the fatherland: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, since there is a threefold distinction of the fear that is a gift, namely servile, initial, and filial; the servile does not remain, because it is driven out by grace; the initial does not, because it is driven out by perfect charity; the filial does not, because it fears lest it offend the eyes of the Father: therefore it does not seem that fear remains in the fatherland according to any of its distinctions.

6. Likewise, the perfection of glory exceeds filial fear itself more than the perfection of charity exceeds initial fear itself; but initial fear does not stand with perfect charity, as was shown above⁹: therefore neither does filial fear with glory. Nor is there any other distinction of fear that remains there: therefore the gift of fear will simply be done away in the fatherland.

Conclusion. The gift of fear, as to one act alone, is not done away in the fatherland, but is preserved and perfected.

I respond: It must be said that, as was touched on in what precedes¹⁰, it belongs to fear to regard three things, namely punishment, that it may flee it; the offense, that it may guard against it; the supreme Majesty, that it may submit itself to it by showing reverence. And accordingly there is a threefold distinction of the gift of fear: one, which principally looks to punishment, and this is servile; another, which has one eye to punishment, but yet holds the more principal one to the avoiding of the offense, and this is initial; the third, which has one eye to the avoiding of the offense, but the other to the showing of reverence, and this is filial; of which, although one use is in fleeing, lest one be separated from God, the other, more excellent and more principal, is in revering God, recoiling from the supreme Majesty into one's own littleness. And this use indeed was in Christ and is in the holy Angels and will be in all the Blessed¹¹. — And as to that eye and use the gift of fear remains in the fatherland; but as to the other, lower ones it is taken away, because these belong to it according to the state of imperfection. But because the principal use remains to it, hence it is that it is not said to be done away, but rather perfected and preserved. — Whence also the reasons that prove this can be conceded.

To the arguments for the negative side (Solution of the contraries): To 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that hope is as noble as fear; it must be said that this is true of fear as to a certain use of it, which indeed consists in the flight from evil, according to which mode fear and hope have to be divided from one another¹²; and as to this use it is

true that it will not remain in the fatherland, just as neither will hope. There is also another use of it, which is to revere the supreme Majesty by recoiling into one's own littleness; and as to this fear is not so opposed to the state of glory as hope is; and therefore it is not necessary that it be done away in the fatherland. For as to this use a greater excellence is found in fear than in hope, because it is less dissonant from the state of glory¹³.

To 2. To that which is objected, that just as hope is in respect of a future good, so fear is in respect of a future evil; the response is already plain: because that argument does not proceed concerning fear generally, which is in respect of the supreme arduous thing¹⁴, but as to that use which it has in the present in respect of evil.

To 3. To that which is objected from the authority of Augustine, it must be said similarly that that is not a general definition of fear, but is given only of fear according to the use and state of the wayfarer, and this not according to every [fear], as was touched on before.

To 4. To that which is objected, that just as disquiet is opposed to peace, so fear to security; it must be said that, if this be understood of the fear of separation, it has truth; but if it be understood of the fear of reverence, it does not have truth, because reverence and security are in no way opposed.

To 5. To that which is objected, that no distinction of fear will remain in the fatherland; I respond briefly that on the contrary filial fear will remain. Nor is it valid what it objects, that there will not be there the fear of separation or of offense. For even though filial fear regards this in some way, yet it regards something else more principally.

To 6. To that which is objected, that the perfection of glory exceeds filial fear more than perfect charity [exceeds] the initial; it must be said that a greater and a lesser excess does not make a habit to be done away, but rather to be perfected and consummated, but rather some opposition, which is found between that which does away and drives out, and that which is done away and driven out¹⁵. Therefore that argument is not valid, since, even though the perfection of glory exceeds filial fear more than the charity of the way [exceeds] the initial: nevertheless initial fear, by reason of that which has an eye to punishment, is more opposed to the perfection of charity, than the fear of reverence is opposed to the perfection of blessedness¹⁶.