FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 130, Art. 1]

Whether Presumption Is a Sin?

Objection 1: It seems that presumption is not a sin. For the Apostle

says: "Forgetting the things that are behind, I stretch forth [Vulg.:

'and stretching forth'] myself to those that are before." But it

seems to savor of presumption that one should tend to what is above

oneself. Therefore presumption is not a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 7) "we should not

listen to those who would persuade us to relish human things because

we are men, or mortal things because we are mortal, but we should

relish those that make us immortal": and (Metaph. i) "that man should

pursue divine things as far as possible." Now divine and immortal

things are seemingly far above man. Since then presumption consists

essentially in tending to what is above oneself, it seems that

presumption is something praiseworthy, rather than a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:5): "Not that we are

sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves." If then

presumption, by which one strives at that for which one is not

sufficient, be a sin, it seems that man cannot lawfully even think of

anything good: which is absurd. Therefore presumption is not a sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 37:3): "O wicked

presumption, whence camest thou?" and a gloss answers: "From a

creature's evil will." Now all that comes of the root of an evil will

is a sin. Therefore presumption is a sin.

_I answer that,_ Since whatever is according to nature, is ordered by

the Divine Reason, which human reason ought to imitate, whatever is

done in accordance with human reason in opposition to the order

established in general throughout natural things is vicious and

sinful. Now it is established throughout all natural things, that

every action is commensurate with the power of the agent, nor does

any natural agent strive to do what exceeds its ability. Hence it is

vicious and sinful, as being contrary to the natural order, that any

one should assume to do what is above his power: and this is what is

meant by presumption, as its very name shows. Wherefore it is evident

that presumption is a sin.

Reply Obj. 1: [A thing may be] above the active power of a natural

thing, and yet not above the passive power of that same thing: thus

the air is possessed of a passive power by reason of which it can be

so changed as to obtain the action and movement of fire, which

surpass the active power of air. Thus too it would be sinful and

presumptuous for a man while in a state of imperfect virtue to

attempt the immediate accomplishment of what belongs to perfect

virtue. But it is not presumptuous or sinful for a man to endeavor to

advance towards perfect virtue. In this way the Apostle stretched

himself forth to the things that were before him, namely continually

advancing forward.

Reply Obj. 2: Divine and immortal things surpass man according to the

order of nature. Yet man is possessed of a natural power, namely the

intellect, whereby he can be united to immortal and Divine things. In

this respect the Philosopher says that "man ought to pursue immortal

and divine things," not that he should do what it becomes God to do,

but that he should be united to Him in intellect and will.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3), "what we can

do by the help of others we can do by ourselves in a sense." Hence

since we can think and do good by the help of God, this is not

altogether above our ability. Hence it is not presumptuous for a man

to attempt the accomplishment of a virtuous deed: but it would be

presumptuous if one were to make the attempt without confidence in

God's assistance.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 802 / 1128 题