The Gift of Fear of the Lord

The Gift of Fear of the Lord.—The Gift of the Holy Ghost that perfects the virtue of hope is Fear of the Lord (see 159 sqq.); for (a) hope is the root from which the Gift of Fear is derived, since hope joins the affections to God, and fear acts upon the soul that is thus tending towards its beatitude—we fear to lose what we hope for; (b) fear assists hope, since it makes us dread, not the loss of beatitude or of divine help, but the lack of cooperation on our own part with the assistance given by God.

Not every kind of fear pertains to the Gift called Fear of the Lord. In the first place, we must distinguish between physical and moral fear. (a) Fear, physically considered, is the emotion treated above (see 41 sqq., 120), which manifests itself in aversion, bashfulness, shame, dismay, alarm, horror, etc. This kind of fear, like the other passions (see 121), is morally indifferent in itself. (b) Fear, morally considered, is a dread of imminent evil as leading one to God or away from Him. In this sense fear is now discussed.

The object of fear is always some evil, for the good does not repel, but attracts. The motive of fear, however, is something good; for one dreads evil on account of some good one wishes to obtain or retain. By reason of the motive, then, fear may be divided into two moral species, namely, fear of the world and fear of God.

(a) Fear of the world is that which dreads creatures more than God, because it sets more store by the things of time than by those of eternity. Thus, St. Peter’s denial of Christ was prompted by fear of the world. When the object of this fear is loss of the esteem of men, it is called human respect.

(b) Fear of God is that which dreads the Creator more than creatures, because it prizes Him above all. Thus, St. Peter’s death for Christ proceeded from his fear of God.

Fear of the world is always sinful, because it makes one offend, or be willing to offend, God for the sake of escaping some temporal evil. It is forbidden by our Lord: “Fear ye not them that kill the body and are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear Him that can destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matt, x. 28). Elias (or Eliseus) is praised because of his freedom from fear of the world: “In his days he feared not the prince” (Ecclus., xlviii. 13). We should note, however, the distinction between habitual fear, on the one hand, and actual or virtual fear, on the other hand.

(a) Habitual worldly fear is a state, not an act—that is, the condition of those who are in mortal sin, and have therefore preferred self to God as the supreme end of life. It is a matter of faith that not all the acts of sinners or unbelievers are bad, for they are able to seek certain particular or natural goods.

(b) Actual fear of the world is a deliberate choice of sin out of fear of some temporal evil; virtual fear is a deliberate act proceeding from such a choice though without advertence to the choice or fear. In both these kinds of fear there is sin, for actual fear commands evil, virtual fear executes it. Examples: Sempronius internally resolves to be guided by his fear of imprisonment rather than by the law of God against perjury (actual fear). He then proceeds to perjure himself, adverting to what he says, but not thinking about his previous fear (virtual fear).

The species of sin to which worldly fear belongs are as follows:

(a) The theological species of this sin depends on the disposition of the person. He sins mortally, if on account of fear he is ready to offend God seriously; he sins venially, if on account of fear he is prepared to commit only a venial sin. Examples: Titus, in order to escape imprisonment or exile, swears falsely. Balbus, having been absent from his office without leave, tells a little lie to escape reproof for this misdemeanor. Titus’ fear is a grave sin, that of Balbus a venial sin.

(b) The moral species of worldly fear is, as a rule, the same as the species of the sin to which it leads, so that but one sin is committed and need be confessed. The reason is that generally the object of fear is something that deserves to be dreaded, and that the aversion from it is not wrong except in so far as it is carried to the extreme of using sin as a means of escape. Example: Caius is wrongly suspected of theft. To free his reputation he swears falsely about a circumstance that appears incriminating. His fear of losing his good name is not a sin in itself, and hence he is guilty of the one sin of perjury.

There are exceptional cases when fear is a distinct sin from the sin to which it leads.

(a) If the fear of losing some temporal good is so great that one is prepared to commit any sin to escape the loss, and if later by reason of this fear one swears falsely, two sins are committed—one against charity, because a temporal good was preferred to God, and the other against religion, because God was called on to witness to falsehood.

(b) If the fear is that one will not be able to commit one kind of sin, and this induces one to commit another kind of sin, evidently two sins are committed. Example: Balbus wishes to calumniate Caius, but is not able to do so himself. Fearing that Caius will escape his vengeance, he steals money and offers it to Sempronius as an inducement to calumniate Caius. The two sins, calumny and theft, are committed.

Not every fear of man or of temporal evil falls under worldly and sinful fear. (a) To fear or reverence man in those things in which he represents the authority of God is a duty: “Render to all men their dues ... fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Rom., xiii. 7). (b) To fear temporal evils (such as loss of life, reputation, liberty, property) in a moderate and reasonable manner, is good. Hence, our Lord bids us pray for deliverance from evil.

Fear of God is of two specifically distinct kinds, according as the object one dreads is offense of God or punishments from God. (a) Servile fear, that of a servant with regard to his master, dreads sin because of the punishment it entails; (b) filial fear, that of a son with regard to his father, dreads sin because of the offense to God that is contained in it.

Servile fear may be considered either as to its substance or as to its accidents. (a) The substance or essence of servile fear is derived from its object (see 71), that is, from the evil of penalty which it entails; (b) the accidents of servile fear are its circumstances (see 72), such as the state of the person who has the fear, the manner in which he fears, etc.

Servile fear in itself is good and supernatural.

(a) That servile fear is good, is a dogma of faith defined in the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, Can. 8; Sess. XXIV, Can. 5). Our Lord recommends this fear when he says: “I will show you whom ye shall fear. Fear ye Him who after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear Him” (Luke, xii. 5). the object of this fear is penalty, which is an evil, and consequently something that ought to be dreaded.

(b) That servile fear is supernatural, follows from the fact that its acts are supernatural. It comes from the Holy Ghost that man may prepare himself for grace; it is “the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. cx. 10), because through it the wisdom of faith first becomes effective as a rule of action, causing man to depart from sin on account of the justice of God which it makes known to him. Servile fear is thus far superior to that natural fear of pain and suffering which all have.

Though servile fear is good, useful and praiseworthy, it is not perfect. (a) It is inferior to filial fear; for, while servile fear looks upon God as a powerful master who cannot be offended with impunity, filial fear regards Him as a loving Father whom one does not wish to offend. Hence, the Old Law, given amid the thunder of Sinai and with many threats against transgressions, is less perfect than the New Law, which relies more on love than on fear (Rom., viii. 15; Heb., xii. 18-25; Gal., iv. 22 sqq.). (b) Servile fear, although it is regarded by some theologians as an infused habit, is not a Gift of the Holy Ghost, since it may coexist with mortal sin. It seems that it is not even a virtue, since it turns man away, not from moral, but from physical evil; but a number of authorities consider it as a secondary act of the virtue of hope.

Servile fear, as to its circumstances, may be evil. (a) The circumstance of the state of the person who has servile fear is good, when the person is a friend of God; it is evil, when that person is an enemy of God. (b) The circumstance of the manner in which servile fear is elic[i]ted is good, if punishment is not feared as the greatest evil; it is bad, if punishment is feared as the greatest evil, for then one makes self the principal end of life, and would be disposed to sin without restraint, were there no punishment.

The effect of evil circumstances on servile fear itself is as follows:

(a) Servile fear is not rendered evil because of the evil state of the person who fears. Just as a person who is habitually foolish may actually say or do something wise, so a person who is habitually wicked may perform virtuous acts. Mortal sin is no more a defect of servile fear in a sinner than it is a defect of faith or hope in one who has faith or hope without works; neither faith nor hope nor fear is to be blamed for the state of mortal sin, but the person who has those gifts of God is at fault. True, the sinner, by reason of his lack of love of God, does not put fear of sin above fear of punishment. But from this it does not follow that he puts fear of punishment above fear of sin, for he may fear punishment absolutely (i.e., without making any comparison between the evil of sin and the evil of punishment). The fear which makes no comparisons is good, or else we must say that only filial fear avails, which, as said above, is not true.

(b) Servile fear is rendered evil as to the manner in which it is performed, when one compares sin and punishment, dislikes only the latter, and avoids sin only to escape punishment. This kind of fear is slavish, for it makes one do something good unwillingly, like a slave forced to labor against his wishes, whereas God is pleased only with service that comes from a willing spirit (I Par., xxviii. 9).

Hence, we must distinguish the following cases of servile fear:

(a) Fear of punishment is purely servile when it makes a person avoid sin, but does not make him put away his love of God.

(b) Fear of punishment is not purely servile, when it causes a sinner not only to cease from sin, but to give up his affection for sin; this fear is distinct from charity, but prepares for it: “The fear of the Lord driveth out sin” (Ecclus., i. 27).

(c) Still less is the fear of punishment purely servile, when it leads a just man, who already detests sin as an offense against God, to detest it as involving punishment from God. This fear exists along with charity, for the love of God and the right love of self are not exclusive. But, as charity increases, servile fear must decrease; the more a person loves God, the less is he concerned about his own good, the more confidently does he hope in God, and hence the less does he fear penalty.

There are two degrees of filial fear to be distinguished:

(a) Initial fear is that of beginners in charity. On account of past sins, they fear punishments from God; on account of their present love of God, they fear they may be again separated from Him. The second fear is stronger with them, and it commands that the first fear be aroused to hold the will more firmly against whatever might separate from love. Of this fear it is said: “The fear of God is the beginning of His love” (Ecclus., xxv. 16).

(b) Perfected fear is that of those who are established in charity. The more the love of God sways the heart, the more is every other love, that of self included, subjugated to the love of God, and the less is one troubled by the thoughts of evils that may befall self. Even in this present life some souls are so strong in the love of God that all servile fear disappears: “I am sure that neither death nor life ... shall be able to separate us from the love of God” (Rom., viii. 38, 39); “Perfect charity casteth out fear, because fear hath pain, and he that feareth is not perfected in charity” (I John, iv. 18).

The perfected fear of God has two acts:

(a) In the present life, where it is possible that one may offend God and lose His friendship, one dreads the commission of offense and the loss of friendship. This fear should be always with us: “Keep His fear and grow old therein” (Ecclus., ii. 6). With the growth of charity there is a corresponding growth in the fear of separation from God, because the more ardently God is loved, the more one realizes the greatness of the loss sustained through sin.

(b) In eternal life, where sin and separation from God are impossible, the blessed do not fear these evils: “He that shall hear Me, shall rest without terror, and shall enjoy abundance without fear of evils” (Prov., i. 33). But in the presence of the Divine Majesty the Angels and Saints are filled with awe and reverence: “I saw them that had overcome the beast, singing: Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and magnify Thy name?” (Apoc., xv. 3, 4); “The pillars of heaven tremble and dread at His beck” (Job, xxvi. 11); “Through whom (Christ) the Angels praise Thy majesty, the Dominations worship it, the Powers are in awe” (Preface of the Mass). This holy fear is unending, for the infinite distance between God and His creatures, His incomprehensibility to them, will never cease: “The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring forever and ever” (Ps. xviii. 10).

The filial fear of God is identical with the Gift of fear of the Lord, spoken of in scripture: “He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord” (Is., xi. 3). The function of the Gifts is to make the soul docile to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and to supplement or serve the habits of virtue, and both these benefits are conferred by filial fear.

(a) This fear makes the soul ready to follow impulses prompted by God, for through it we subject ourselves to God as our Father, revering His wondrous majesty and fearing to stray from Him. Indeed, this is the first of the Gifts, for the realization of one’s nothingness before God is the starting-point of promptitude in receiving His teaching and guidance.

(b) Filial fear is a principle from which proceed acts of all the moral virtues, inasmuch as the reverence for God’s surpassing majesty and respect for His almighty power and justice incline one to lay aside pride, intemperance, and every vice, and exercise good works that are pleasing to Him: “The root of wisdom is to fear the Lord, and the branches thereof are long-lived” (Ecclus., i. 27).

(c) Filial fear is especially and primarily related to the virtue of hope, for these two complement each other, as do the emotions of hope and fear. Hope aspires to conquer the heights of heaven, and feels that God is on its side; fear reminds one of the greatness of God and of the dangers of over-confidence. Each then is necessary to balance the other: “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, and in them that hope in His mercy” (Ps. cxlvi. 11).

To the Gift of Fear correspond the first Beatitude and the fruits of modesty, continency and chastity. (a) Filial fear makes one realize that all but God is as nothing, and hence that true greatness must be sought, not in the self-esteem of pride, nor in the external pomp of riches and honors, but in God alone: “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will call upon the name of the Lord our God” (Ps. xix. 8). This is the disposition of soul to which is promised the First Beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt, v. 3). To the first of the Gifts, in the order of preparation, corresponds the first of the Beatitudes. (b) Filial fear makes one dread the thought of separation from God, and hence it leads one to use temporal things with moderation, or to abstain from them entirely, To it, then, pertain the Fruits of the Spirit, which St. Paul names “modesty, continency, chastity” (Gal, v. 23).

S. Th. II-II, q. 19.

820. Notions. - Fear is a movement of the appetite by which it flees an impending evil which, although difficult to avoid, nevertheless can be avoided. It arises from love and hope: for man fears to lose or not attain that which he loves or hopes for. - Then fear and hope mutually help one another so that they may preserve man from presumption and despair: for fear mediates between hope and despair. Hence after we have treated of hope, and before we treat of despair, rightly there is treatment of fear.

821. What the fear of God is. - We cannot fear God insofar as he is an evil which we flee, for he is the supreme good; but we can fear some evil on account of God, insofar as from God or by comparison with God some evil can befall us: 1. from God indeed, the evil of eternal or temporal punishment, which he can inflict upon us; 2. by comparison with God, the evil of fault can befall us, by which we offend him and are separated from him.

822. How many kinds of fear of God there are. - Fear by which we are turned toward God and adhere to him is threefold: 1. if we are turned toward him and avoid sins only on account of the evil of punishment, it is servile fear, by which man fears fault (that is, offense against God) on account of punishment: for in this way servants are accustomed to fear punishments to be inflicted by a master; - 2. if we are turned and avoid sins only on account of the evil of fault, it is filial fear, by which man fears fault as fault, or insofar as it is an offense against God: for it belongs to sons to fear the offense of the father; - 3. but if we avoid sins and adhere to God on account of both, it is initial fear, intermediate between servile and filial, and as it were the beginning of filial fear.

To these there is opposed worldly or human fear, by which man withdraws from God, and on account of the evil which he fears, is prepared to offend God. This fear is always a grave or light sin, according as it induces us to sin mortally or venially.

823. Principle I. Servile fear in itself, considered according to its essence, is good: for it is nothing other than fear of punishment to be inflicted by God, which is deservedly feared. Hence Mt. X, 28: "Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (cf. Lk. XII, 5; Mt. III, 7-10). This can be honorable, because it does not positively exclude fear of fault (just as neither does it include it), but abstracts from comparison with fault. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 6, can. 8; sess. 14, c. 4; condemned props. 14 and 15 by Alexander VIII; and 60-64 of Quesnel, by Clement XI.

Nor does it stand in the way that to fear only punishment is disordered. For from its essence and proper object, servile fear only fears punishment simply, abstracting from this, whether fault also as fault must be feared or not, for it does not exclude another fear: so that it is not affirmed that only punishment is feared, nor is it affirmed that fault also is feared. - But that someone fears punishment only and does not fear fault on account of itself does not come from the essence or object of this fear, but because in fact it is found in a sinner who does not fear God's fault: therefore it becomes servile by reason of something extrinsic, namely, the state of the one fearing, from the absence alone of charity and filial fear. Hence:

1. the absence of charity is evil, whence it is said by St. Thomas that the servility of fear is evil;

2. since the absence of charity is extrinsic to fear, servility is extrinsic to it;

3. whence, when charity and fear of fault arrive, fear of punishment remains according to its essence but is no longer servile.

824. Corollary. - Several modern theologians distinguish servile fear as a genus into two species, namely, into simply servile and servilely servile; yet not rightly, for servilely servile fear has nothing in common with servile fear except the name. Fear simply servile, namely, is the fear described above; but servilely servile fear is the fear by which man fears punishment more than fault, and indeed in such a way that here and now he is so disposed that he would sin if there were no punishment. It is a fear which positively excludes fear of fault, by which namely a man says: I fear nothing except punishment, so that servility is intrinsic to it and belongs to it from its proper object and is of its essence. But such fear is not true fear of God, by which we are turned toward God from reverence and avoid sins, but is a sin; hence rather than being numbered among the fears of God, it seems to be reduced to worldly fear.

825. Principle II. Servile and filial fear differ in species, since they are concerned with a diverse evil object; initial fear, by which we tend toward God, fearing primarily the evil of fault and secondarily the evil of punishment, is not a new species of fear, but is filial fear, with which it has the same primary object, though it is found in an imperfect state.

For those who do not yet have the perfection of charity, but begin to love God, do not yet adhere to God and avoid sins on account of fear of fault alone, but also on account of fear of punishment. Hence in them there is fear of fault which necessarily supposes fear of punishment, and this is initial fear. But as charity grows, fear of punishment diminishes, while filial fear grows.

Filial fear does not exclude fear of punishment, but brings it about that fear of punishment is not the reason why we adhere to God: for this, in those who have filial fear, is only the fear of offending God.

826. Whether fear of God remains after this life? - In heaven fear of punishment does not remain; but filial fear has two acts, namely: 1. to fear separation from God, and as to this act it does not remain in heaven, where no fault is to be feared; 2. to revere God, and as to this act it remains, for the blessed, considering the loftiness of God and their own littleness, venerate God with the highest submission of soul and are perfectly subject to him: this is reverential fear.

827. The fear of the Lord is called the beginning of wisdom, not according to its essence, but as to the effect whence wisdom begins to operate (Ps. CX, 10; Eccli. I, 16):

1. servile fear, insofar as it is the first thing which disposes externally to wisdom (Eccli. I, 27);

2. filial fear, because the first effect of wisdom is reverence and subjection toward God (ibid. 20-22).

828. Observation. - Servile fear, although it is from the Holy Spirit, nevertheless is not numbered among his seven special gifts, because it is found in a sinner who does not possess the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But filial fear is numbered among those gifts: for the gifts dispose us to obey promptly the motion of the Holy Spirit; but for this it is required, and indeed first, that we not be resistant to the motion; but this is brought about by filial fear, by which we revere God and subject ourselves to him. And therefore filial fear holds the first place among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, ascending from the less perfect to the more perfect.

To this gift corresponds the first beatitude: Blessed are the poor in spirit...: for filial fear makes us revere God and be subject to him; hence we seek to be magnified in God alone, and not in ourselves through pride, or in honors, or in riches.

Of that fear there is chiefly to be disputed, whence God begins to taste of wisdom to the mind, and the creature to be foolish; of this the Seraphic Doctor says on the seven Gifts, cap. 3. on the gift of fear, that it never departs from wisdom, but grows with it, and advances unto the perfect day: and he brings forward Hugh of S. Vict. lib. 2. de Arca morali, cap. ult. saying: In the hearts of the Saints Wisdom is sown through fear, watered through grace, dies through sorrow, is rooted through faith, germinates through devotion, rises through compunction, grows through desire, is strengthened through charity, flourishes through Hope, buds and spreads its branches through circumspection, etc. With this gradation the Seraphic Doctor shows also in this fear the twilight, the noon, and the evening of Wisdom: but since it seems to be identified with hope, therefore this must first be seen.

To the virtue of Hope is attached the gift of Fear, which labors in the flight from evil, as will be clear from what is to be said.

NOTE that Fear is sometimes taken for a sensible affection, which consists in the flight from an evil apprehended [by the senses]. Second, for the flight from evil as apprehended by the intellect. Third, for the flight from some future evil, which bears some order toward God, and in this way it is considered by the Theologian; and among these Fears is also the gift of Fear.

I ASSERT that this Fear differs from Hope.

IT IS PROVED from Cardinal Bonaventure first, because according to the Saints and the Philosophers there are four distinct affections of the soul: Joy and Sorrow; Hope and Fear. Now thus they retain their essentials in respect of any evil whatsoever.

SECOND: Because just as the affections concerning the present are opposed, such as Joy and Sorrow, so too are the affections that look to the future, such as Hope and Fear.

THIRD. The habit of a virtue differs more from the habits of the gifts than the habits of the virtues differ from one another: but the habit of Fear is reckoned among the Gifts, and the habit of Hope among the virtues, as Cardinal Gregory says, book 11, Moralia, chapter 4.

FOURTH: When things are separable, they are distinguished really: but the fear of the Lord is holy, enduring unto ages of ages, Psalm 18; hope, however, is emptied in the fatherland, as I showed in disputation 4, question 11. Therefore.

FIFTH: The causes of things whose effects are opposed are themselves opposed. But Fear makes one timid; hope makes one secure: Therefore.

SIXTH. Whose formal acts are diverse, their habits also are diverse; but the act of hope is a kind of confidence and stretching forth toward arduous eternal good; while that of Fear is a flight from evil; Therefore. That these acts are diverse also comes from the variety of objects, for Potencies are distinguished by acts, and acts by objects, as Aristotle has it, book 2, de anima, 33, as Cardinal Bonaventure teaches 1 dist. 7 art. 1 q. 1 ad argumenta, and q. 3 ad argumenta, and in 2 dist. 7 p. 1 art. 2 q. 1 ad arg., and dist. 24 p. 1 art. 2 q. 1 ad arg., and in 3 dist. 23 art. 1 q. 3 ad arg., and dist. 26 art. 1 q. 2 ad arg. — they are distinguished, I say, at least a posteriori by their objects, insofar as they have the character of motive. But the object of hope is good, future, eternal, arduous: the object of Fear is a future evil, surmountable: Therefore.

YOU WILL OBJECT first: The same power abstracts from one extreme and is drawn toward the other; for indeed the same weight abstracts from the summit and is drawn to the center. The same is the power in spirits that weight is in bodies, as Cardinal Augustine says, book 11 de civitate Dei, chapter 18, and book 6 de Trinitate, chapter 10, and book 13 of the Confessions, chapter 9. Therefore there is one habit by which we flee from evil in fearing, and tend toward good in hoping.

The Holy Doctor ANSWERS by denying the parity; for in local motion, by the same motion we recede from the terminus a quo and approach the terminus ad quem, because local motion is between two extremes, one of which has the character of a principle, the other of a terminus. But in voluntary matters it happens otherwise; for when there are two opposites, the soul can be affected with regard to one while considering nothing with regard to the other; for it can be affected with regard to the good while considering nothing regarding the evil, and conversely; and therefore it is moved by diverse affections with regard to opposites.

YOU WILL OBJECT second: In the disciplines there is one discipline of opposites, as of the straight and the curved, of the healthy and the sick: But the habit of virtue is a kind of art: Therefore it directs toward opposites: Therefore the same moves both to pursuing the good and to fleeing evil.

The Holy Doctor ANSWERS by denying the likeness with the habits of the virtues, for two reasons. The first is, because the will separates things that are really conjoined; hence someone wills the antecedent, and yet does not will the consequent. But cognition does not separate things that are naturally conjoined; hence whoever knows and asserts the antecedent asserts also the consequent. And since, by reason of consequence, opposite properties follow opposites in the very thing by which they are to be known — as if white gathers, black gathers — hence it is that there can be one cognitive habit of opposites, although there is not one affective habit.

The second dissimilitude is, because the cognitive power can busily deal with either opposite by a like act; for it judges of the oblique by the rule of the straight itself; but the affective power not so; rather, if it appetites one of two opposites, it rejects the other; if it loves one, it hates the other, speaking per se. The reason is, because the affective power is more united to the appetible than the cognitive to the knowable; hence love transforms the lover into the beloved; and therefore it does not follow that, if there could be one science of opposites, there could also be one affection, or one directive virtue of affection.

YOU WILL OBJECT third. Of two extremes there is one mean: but between Despair and Presumption Hope and Fear intervene: Therefore they are one.

The Holy Doctor ANSWERS: between two extremes there is one mean dividing equally, and this is a point; but with the mean taken broadly, which is not indivisibly between the extremes, there can be several means: Thus between Brixia and Venice lies Verona, Vicenza, Padua. Therefore between the extremes of presumption and of Despair there are Hope and Fear, yet so that Fear inclines more toward despair, and Hope declines more toward presumption; yet neither reaches the defect of the other.

The Holy Doctor ALSO answers otherwise: that this is to be understood of a mean which is composed of both extremes, as Liberality intervenes between Prodigality and Avarice: but Hope and Fear do not intervene in this manner.

THIRD he answers, by denying that Fear and Hope are means of the same extremes: For Hope holds the middle between Despair and Presumption; but Fear between Rashness and Timidity, or pusillanimity; and thus it is not necessary that Fear and Hope agree in the unity of virtue, unity of affection, etc.

YOU WILL OBJECT fourth. What is begotten is like its begetter; but Hope is begotten from faith, which believes both good and evil: Therefore Hope also tends toward goods and flees evils.

The Holy Doctor ANSWERS by denying that there should be a likeness in this, all the more because Hope is produced by faith as an equivocal cause; for faith, because it regards goods and evils under the aspect of the truth revealed, can regard both: but Hope and Fear are affective habits, which do not regard good and evil [indifferently]. Furthermore, faith is a habit directed to cognition, which is not diversified on account of the contrariety of objects; but affective habits must be diverse, because they regard under diverse aspects: the good indeed under the aspect of the fitting, but evil under the aspect of the noxious.

YOU WILL OBJECT fifth. Of opposites the same is the reason; but vice, the opposite of virtue, turns away from good and turns toward evil: Therefore the same virtue performs the same.

The Holy Doctor ANSWERS that the acts of aversion from God and conversion to creatures are two, although they can be referred to one sin; because one and the same can be compared and referred to diverse things; and thus it is not the same with the affection of Fear and Hope, because one potency cannot at once and in one act be affected with regard to diverse contraries; therefore it does not follow that, if aversion and conversion can be about one action and form, likewise Fear and Hope have being about one and the same affection.

FEAR has for its object evil, professedly to be fled.

The Holy Doctor observes here, in dub. 1 and 2, that there are four Fears. The first is worldly, and it is that by which someone, fearing some inconvenience of this life, in order to escape it, offends God.

From this fear Christ taught us to beware, Matthew 10: Do not fear those who kill the body. The second Fear is servile, by which one is frightened away from sins on account of punishments. This however is twofold: one is merely servile, mechanical, which is so frightened by punishments that, if these did not loom, it would still commit sins freely; and this is still inordinate, and is therefore censured by all, especially by Cardinal Bonaventure; the other is indeed servile but does not exclude flight from fault, such as that of a man who is crushed by his committed sins out of fear of gehenna, and such is good and a gift of the Holy Spirit, as the Council of Trent teaches, session 14, chapter 4, and session 6, canon 8, as I shall say in question 3. Christ enjoins this fear at once in the place cited of Matthew: Fear him, who after he has killed the body has power to send into Gehenna, and 1 John 4: Fear is not in Charity: but perfect Charity casts out fear. In this text the third Fear is also hinted at, which is called Initial, by which one so fears God's offense that he fears punishment at the same time; and this is touched in the place cited where it is said: Fear is not in Charity: but perfect Charity casts out fear. He means that this is not with charity — truly perfect — which is clear from that clause, but perfect Charity, etc.

The FOURTH Fear is filial, which detests evil insofar as it is against God and redounds to his offense. Of this it is said, Romans 8: You have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear — that is, you have not received servile fear, like the ancients, who heard the observance of the law through terrors and threats — but you have received the Spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry Abba (Father). Of this fear it is also said, Psalm 18: The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring unto ages of ages. Where Augustine and others read chaste; for the just are compared to God as a most chaste bride to her bridegroom, acting indeed out of fear lest they wound the bridegroom, but with love. So 1 Corinthians 10 [actually 2 Cor. 11]: I have espoused you, etc.

One must then note with Cardinal Bonaventure, opusculum 15, On the Seven Gifts: On the Gift of Fear, chapter 1, that the variety of Fears is born from the variety of loves; for Fear is love fleeing whatever opposes it, from Cardinal Augustine, book 14, de civitate Dei, chapter 7. And in the Gloss on John 10, which is St. Augustine's, we have: Fear is a flight, lest man lose what he loves. Therefore Fear arises from love, and thus from ordered love arises ordered fear, and from inordinate love, inordinate fear; and such as is the love of the good, such is the fear of the opposite evil.

Hence Adam, who at first loved God filially, feared to offend him; but after he offended out of inordinate love, he feared servilely and said: Lord, I heard your voice, and I feared, Genesis 3.

HUGH, book 2 de sacramentis, part 13, chapter 5, distinguishes five Fears. The first is Human, or natural, which is a passion, arising from natural love, by which each one fears harm to his nature; but by passions we neither merit nor demerit, because they are not subject to free will, except when one conducts himself rationally with regard to them. With this fear Christ feared to die, but only as much as he willed, for our example and instruction.

The SECOND is Worldly, which is truly born of inordinate love of the present life or of things pertaining to it, and is always evil; because, as John says, 1 John 2: Whoever loves the world is constituted an enemy of God. This, however, according to the variety of the goods of the world, of the flesh, etc., of its loved objects, is subdivided materially, as Cardinal Bonaventure notes, dub. 1 literal.

The THIRD is Servile, which from God is (as the Holy Doctor says) not as "merely servile" sounds, but as implicitly excluding offense; of this Psalm 118: Pierce my flesh with your fear, and Cardinal Augustine, enarratio 25: The servile fear, the pedagogue of the law, came first, which leads to Christ; it arises from love of eternal things, lest one lose them by eternal damnation; it is twofold, as I shall say in question 3, near the end of the arguments.

The FOURTH is the filial fear of beginners, of which it is said: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and it is from charity begun. Therefore of this it is said that it is not with charity, that is, perfect, because: perfect charity casts out fear, 1 John 4; and Cardinal Bernard, sermon 22 on the Song of Songs, says: Not undeservedly this Fear is called the beginning of wisdom, which often first sets itself against folly. For this fear is a kind of entrance to wisdom.

The FIFTH is the Fear filial, which arises from charity perfected, as I said.

OBSERVE third, with Cardinal Bonaventure, here dist. 34, dub. 3, that this last fear is divided with respect to specific objects, so that one is the chaste Fear, which is the bride's; another the friendly, that is, of the Friend; another the son's: for the son fears to offend the Father, the Friend his friend, the bride her bridegroom. But with respect to God there is one, both because of the motive, in which generically those mentioned also agree, and because there is one grace with respect to God, constituting the soul daughter, spouse, and friend of God.

He also notes, in dub. 4, that Initial and servile Fear agree in some way, for each is the beginning of wisdom, but servile begins from outside, the other through some charity. Fear is truly called the beginning of wisdom because it begins to ascend gradually to the gifts, up to the highest, which is wisdom.

From what has been said, then, elicit with Cardinal Bonaventure, dub. 1, that Fear regards evil by fleeing it; and because from the varying of objects arises the variety of Fears, by a broad division the definitions of each fear can also be given. Fear, therefore, is thus defined by Cardinal Augustine, Tractate 46 on John: Fear is the flight of the soul, lest it lose what it loves. For it flees the evil, which is the loss of the beloved good. It is also defined by Damascene, book 2 de fide, chapter 18: Fear is the expectation of a future evil; and expectation is taken broadly for the estimation, shuddering at the looming danger; for thus unlucky tidings are awaited, as the Holy Doctor notes, dub. 1. Therefore Fear in general is the flight from an arduous evil to be avoided, and from a good to be reverenced, as St. Bonaventure teaches, part 3 of the Centiloquium, section 45.

HENCE, given this division of Fears, each can be defined from its various motives. Thus natural Fear is the flight from an evil noxious to nature. Worldly Fear is defined: it is the inordinate flight from the evils of this life. Servile Fear: it is the flight from penal evils, without excluding the flight from offense against God, and so with the rest.

Fear, therefore, of whatever kind, is a recoil from the arduous — which is evil in the fears adduced, and also good in the perfect filial fear; for it recoils, not indeed from the good, but from the arduousness, which is the excellence of the good, yet it recoils with reverence; and for this reason they admit filial Fear even in the fatherland, as is said, Psalm 18: Enduring unto ages of ages — truly in this life it recoils from evil as it is offense, as I shall say in question 7.

From this variety of objects the Holy Doctor deduces that there is not one univocal specific object of all, but an analogical one; for the good which is the object of perfect filial fear — which fears to lose the highest good on the way, and in the fatherland is borne reverently toward that sublime good — are analogical objects.