FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 10, Art. 5]

Whether There Are Several Species of Unbelief?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not several species of

unbelief. For, since faith and unbelief are contrary to one another,

they must be about the same thing. Now the formal object of faith is

the First Truth, whence it derives its unity, although its matter

contains many points of belief. Therefore the object of unbelief also

is the First Truth; while the things which an unbeliever disbelieves

are the matter of his unbelief. Now the specific difference depends

not on material but on formal principles. Therefore there are not

several species of unbelief, according to the various points which

the unbeliever disbelieves.

Obj. 2: Further, it is possible to stray from the truth of faith in

an infinite number of ways. If therefore the various species of

unbelief correspond to the number of various errors, it would seem to

follow that there is an infinite number of species of unbelief, and

consequently, that we ought not to make these species the object of

our consideration.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing does not belong to different species.

Now a man may be an unbeliever through erring about different points

of truth. Therefore diversity of errors does not make a diversity of

species of unbelief: and so there are not several species of unbelief.

_On the contrary,_ Several species of vice are opposed to each

virtue, because "good happens in one way, but evil in many ways,"

according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii,

6). Now faith is a virtue. Therefore several species of vice are

opposed to it.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (I-II, Q. 55, A. 4; I-II, Q. 64, A.

1), every virtue consists in following some rule of human knowledge

or operation. Now conformity to a rule happens one way in one matter,

whereas a breach of the rule happens in many ways, so that many vices

are opposed to one virtue. The diversity of the vices that are

opposed to each virtue may be considered in two ways, first, with

regard to their different relations to the virtue: and in this way

there are determinate species of vices contrary to a virtue: thus to

a moral virtue one vice is opposed by exceeding the virtue, and

another, by falling short of the virtue. Secondly, the diversity of

vices opposed to one virtue may be considered in respect of the

corruption of the various conditions required for that virtue. In

this way an infinite number of vices are opposed to one virtue, e.g.

temperance or fortitude, according to the infinite number of ways in

which the various circumstances of a virtue may be corrupted, so that

the rectitude of virtue is forsaken. For this reason the Pythagoreans

held evil to be infinite.

Accordingly we must say that if unbelief be considered in comparison

to faith, there are several species of unbelief, determinate in

number. For, since the sin of unbelief consists in resisting the

faith, this may happen in two ways: either the faith is resisted

before it has been accepted, and such is the unbelief of pagans or

heathens; or the Christian faith is resisted after it has been

accepted, and this either in the figure, and such is the unbelief of

the Jews, or in the very manifestation of truth, and such is the

unbelief of heretics. Hence we may, in a general way, reckon these

three as species of unbelief.

If, however, the species of unbelief be distinguished according to

the various errors that occur in matters of faith, there are not

determinate species of unbelief: for errors can be multiplied

indefinitely, as Augustine observes (De Haeresibus).

Reply Obj. 1: The formal aspect of a sin can be considered in two

ways. First, according to the intention of the sinner, in which case

the thing to which the sinner turns is the formal object of his sin,

and determines the various species of that sin. Secondly, it may be

considered as an evil, and in this case the good which is forsaken is

the formal object of the sin; which however does not derive its

species from this point of view, in fact it is a privation. We must

therefore reply that the object of unbelief is the First Truth

considered as that which unbelief forsakes, but its formal aspect,

considered as that to which unbelief turns, is the false opinion that

it follows: and it is from this point of view that unbelief derives

its various species. Hence, even as charity is one, because it

adheres to the Sovereign Good, while there are various species of

vice opposed to charity, which turn away from the Sovereign Good by

turning to various temporal goods, and also in respect of various

inordinate relations to God, so too, faith is one virtue through

adhering to the one First Truth, yet there are many species of

unbelief, because unbelievers follow many false opinions.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers the various species of unbelief

according to various points in which errors occur.

Reply Obj. 3: Since faith is one because it believes in many things

in relation to one, so may unbelief, although it errs in many things,

be one in so far as all those things are related to one. Yet nothing

hinders one man from erring in various species of unbelief, even as

one man may be subject to various vices, and to various bodily

diseases.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 77 / 1128 题