|
State of the question. We are concerned with virtues that are so
called in the strict sense, such as the theological and cardinal
virtues. Afterward, in discussing Christ's knowledge, we shall
devote a question exclusively (q. 9) to the consideration of the
intellectual virtues, which are not virtues in the strict sense
inasmuch as they do not make a person absolutely good, but only in a
qualified manner, such as when we say a person is good in metaphysics
or mathematics.
We are concerned not only with directly infused moral virtues, but
also with moral virtues of the natural order, which are acquired by our
individual acts.
Conclusion. Christ had all the virtues. This means that He had all
virtues that do not in their notion imply any defect in the soul of
Christ, who was both wayfarer and comprehensor, as will be pointed
out farther on. Thus in the following articles we shall have occasion
to remark that Christ did not have either faith or hope or penance.
Scriptural proof. The Gospels authoritatively represent Christ as
the exemplar of all virtues. Rationalists, such as Renan,
acknowledge this to be true. We must insist upon this truth for the
better manifestation of Christ's sanctity, which is the motive of
credibility that leads to faith in Him.
There is negative evidence of this truth inasmuch as Christ was
sinless, so that He could say to the Jews who sought to kill Him:
"Which of you shall convince Me of sin?"[859] And nobody
dared to contradict Him. Truly, indeed, as the Gospel narrates:
"The chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against
Jesus that they might put Him to death, and they found
not."[860] But it was only because Jesus confessed that He is
Christ, the Son of God, that "the high priest rent His garments,
saying: 'He hath blasphemed. "[861] Even Judas confessed,
saying: "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood";[862] and
Pilate said: "I am innocent of the blood of this just man, look you
to it."[863]
Moreover, Christ had all virtues and even most different kinds of
them which He practiced in a heroic degree. Love and dutiful
submission to God are especially evident in the life of Jesus, His
love and mercy for men, perfect self-denial, humility and utmost
magnanimity, most perfect meekness as also fortitude and patience on
the cross, as when He prayed for those who tortured Him. We find
wonderfully reconciled in Christ that holy rigor of justice toward the
impenitent Pharisees and that immensity of mercy toward those sinners
who do not resist God's grace.
In fact, as shown in apologetics, this harmony and perseverance that
prevails between such vastly different virtues practiced in a heroic
degree is a moral miracle. For this sublime and profound harmony
between the virtues or holiness of life is impossible without God's
special intervention, for it consists in an inseparable union with God
which can come only from God, inasmuch as the order of agents must
correspond to the order of ends. Apologetical arguments founded not on
revelation but on reason make this already evident.
In fact, Christ's sanctity is not only eminent, but is manifestly
extraordinary in that it unites in itself vastly different heroic
virtues. We have seen indeed that a person is at times naturally
disposed or is by force of habit ready to perform acts requiring
fortitude of soul, who, nevertheless, is not ready to perform acts
that call for meekness of soul, for by nature such a person is
determined one particular way. But that anyone may have all the
virtues and also excel in them, even those so vastly different, such
as supreme fortitude and supreme meekness, perfect love of truth and
justice and also the greatest of mercy toward those that err and fall
into sin, this is impossible without God's special help, who alone
in the simplicity of His nature contains formally and eminently vastly
different perfections, and who can unite these in the human soul, so
as to make it a perfect image of God. Thus the soul of Christ is
that most sublime image in which it is possible to contemplate the
Deity.
Theological proof. It can be proved by theological reasoning that
Christ had all the virtues. This reasoning of St. Thomas is valid
for the infused virtues, and may be expressed as follows:
As the faculties of the soul stem from its essence, so the infused
virtues stem from habitual grace, and in a proportionate degree. But
Christ's soul was endowed with habitual grace from the moment of His
conception, and indeed in the highest degree of perfection, as will be
more clearly explained farther on.[864] Therefore Christ had all
the infused virtues and in the highest degree.[865]
We are concerned with virtues which, in what they mean, imply no
defect in the soul of Christ, who was both wayfarer and comprehensor.
Thus faith, hope, and repentance must be excluded.[866] The
reason given by St. Thomas holds good for charity and all the infused
moral virtues.
Reply to first objection. Habitual grace performs supernatural acts
only through the medium of the virtues.
Reply to second objection. Christ had the virtues most perfectly,
beyond the common mode. In this sense Plotinus gave to a certain
sublime degree of virtue the name of virtue of the purified soul, as
Macrobius says.[867]
Reply to third objection. "Christ showed the highest kind of
liberality and magnificence by despising all riches." For these
virtues, just as wittiness which has to do with joking, can be either
made use of or despised for the sake of a higher end. But Christ had
no evil desires whatever, as will be shown farther on.[868] Thus
Christ had perfect temperance, but not continence, which St.
Augustine says is not a virtue but something less than the virtue of
chastity, for the continent person, strictly speaking, has evil
tendencies, but resists them by will power. Cajetan[869]
remarks, taking the name "continence" in the more common acceptation
of the word, that there is nothing that prevents us from calling
Christ continent.
First doubt. Did Christ have all moral virtues that of themselves
can be acquired? Theologians generally give an affirmative answer to
this question..
The reason is that the sensitive appetite in Christ was no different
from ours, which is an inclination to sensible delectable good; that
it may completely and perfectly tend to its natural and fitting good,
it requires a superadded form, that can be nothing else but a moral
virtue that is directly acquirable. Infused moral virtues did not
suffice, because the direct purpose of these is to incline the will to
supernatural acts. The correlative moral and acquirable virtues,
although they are in themselves in their own order truly virtues, are
related to the virtues as dispositions from which there arises an
extrinsic facility for the practice of the infused virtues, for they
exclude inordinate inclinations resulting from repetition of
acts.[870] The acquired moral virtues are in their relation to
the infused virtues somewhat like dexterity in manipulating the harp is
to the art that is in the practical intellect of the musician. Hence
it is certain that Christ had moral virtues that are of themselves
acquirable; otherwise He would have been morally imperfect, just as
beginners in the Christian life who, by the very fact that they are in
the state of grace, have infused prudence, which scarcely manifests
itself, however, because they lack the virtue of acquired prudence,
without which it is difficult to practice the virtue of infused
prudence.
Confirmation. Christ's will must be perfected as regards good, just
as much as His intellect is as regards truth. But there was acquired
knowledge in Christ's intellect, as will be made clear farther
on.[871] Therefore, likewise in His will and sensitive appetite
there was the possibility of acquiring moral virtues.
First objection. To perform a most perfect act is to act from a
supernatural motive. But Christ always had to perform most perfect
acts. Therefore He always acted from a supernatural motive or by acts
of the infused virtues and not by acts of virtues that of themselves
were acquirable.
Reply. I distinguish the major: to perform a most perfect act is to
act from a supernatural motive, when this motive is the end in view of
the person acting, this I concede; that the deed performed must
always be in itself supernatural, this I deny. Hence, just as
Christ performed not only acts of charity, but also acts of the
infused virtues, so also He performed natural acts that as regards the
object and end of these acts were good and fitting, though they were
subordinated to the supernatural end of charity as being the end in view
of the person acting. Thus Christ said: "Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's...."[872] These are natural
obligations, just as even pagans know that commutative justice requires
the payment of debts.
As grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, so also the infused
virtues neither destroy nor render the acquired virtues useless, but
perfect them, directing them to be performed for the love of God, not
that the acts themselves are supernatural, but that the end in view of
the agent is supernatural. Thus the act of the acquired virtue of
temperance is modally supernatural, whereas the act of the infused
virtue of temperance is substantially supernatural. Thus the acquired
moral virtues are subordinated to the infused moral virtues in some way
just as the imagination and sensitive memory are subordinated to
knowledge, philosophy to theology, and theology to the doctrine of
faith that transcends the science of theology. There is a normal
hierarchy of functions in this subordination.
Second objection. But the acquired virtues are required to restrain
the immoderate tendencies of the passions, which Christ did not have,
for, as will be mentioned farther on,[873] Christ was free from
concupiscence. Therefore He had no need of the acquired virtues.
Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: that the acquired virtues are
necessary in a secondary sense so as to check the immoderate tendencies
of the passions, this I concede; that they are primarily necessary,
this I deny. For the primary and special purpose of these virtues is
to enable the faculties to act properly, promptly, and with facility
in the natural order. It is in this way that chastity operates, for
example, even when there are no temptations to be overcome or passions
to be curbed. Thus humility in Christ did not check the first
movements of pride, but it completely subjected His will to the divine
majesty.
Thus Adam in the state of innocence had those virtues that are of
themselves capable of attainment, and they remain in the blessed, as
St. Thomas teaches.[874]
Second doubt. Did Christ have these moral virtues that can be
acquired of themselves by infusion, or did He acquire them by His own
acts?
It is difficult to give a definite answer to this question.[875]
The more probable opinion of several Thomists is that they were
infused, just as Adam in the state of innocence had them from the
moment of his creation. However, Adam was created in the adult
state, whereas Christ as man gradually grew up to manhood.
The principal reason for this answer is that Christ was never without
these virtues, for to be deprived of them for any time is in itself
something evil, and no defect is admissible in God, except those that
are not contrary to the end of the Incarnation, such as the privation
of the glorification of His body for a time. But such is not the case
with the temporary privation of these virtues. It would be more
derogatory to Christ's dignity that He should be for a time without
these virtues, than increase in perfection by acquiring them, which
cannot be instantaneous, but only a progressive process. Moreover,
the Church declared in the Second Council of Constantinople:
"Christ was not subjected to passions, nor did He become better by
the repetition of virtuous acts."[876]
Objection. But the Gospel says: "Jesus advanced in wisdom and
age, and grace with God and men."[877]
Reply. The answer of St. Thomas is: "Christ advanced in wisdom
and grace as also in age (not by an actual increase of the habits
but), because as He advanced in age He performed more perfect
works."[878]
Another objection. St. Thomas says farther on[879] that
Christ advanced in acquired knowledge. Therefore He also advanced in
moral virtues that of themselves can be acquired.
Reply. There is not parity of argument. (1) The natural sciences
do not make man absolutely good, such as the moral virtues do, but
good only in a qualified sense, such as good in mathematics or in
physics. (2) If the natural sciences were infused in Christ, then
His active intellect would be in a state of continual idleness as
regards its first function, which is to abstract intelligible species
from the senses. Therefore it is more probable that Christ had moral
virtues that of themselves can be acquired from the time of His
conception.
|
|
