|
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were no virtues.
For Christ had the plenitude of grace. Now grace is sufficient for
every good act, according to 2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is
sufficient for thee." Therefore there were no virtues in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
vii, 1), virtue is contrasted with a "certain heroic or godlike
habit" which is attributed to godlike men. But this belongs chiefly
to Christ. Therefore Christ had not virtues, but something higher
than virtue.
Objection 3: Further, as was said above (FS, Question 65,
Articles 1,2), all the virtues are bound together. But it was
not becoming for Christ to have all the virtues, as is clear in the
case of liberality and magnificence, for these have to do with riches,
which Christ spurned, according to Mt. 8:20: "The Son of man
hath not where to lay His head." Temperance and continence also
regard wicked desires, from which Christ was free. Therefore Christ
had not the virtues.
On the contrary, on Ps. 1:2, "But His will is in the law of
the Lord," a gloss says: "This refers to Christ, Who is full of
all good." But a good quality of the mind is a virtue. Therefore
Christ was full of all virtue.
I answer that, As was said above (FS, Question 110,
Articles 3,4), as grace regards the essence of the soul, so does
virtue regard its power. Hence it is necessary that as the powers of
the soul flow from its essence, so do the virtues flow from grace.
Now the more perfect a principle is, the more it impresses its
effects. Hence, since the grace of Christ was most perfect, there
flowed from it, in consequence, the virtues which perfect the several
powers of the soul for all the soul's acts; and thus Christ had all
the virtues.
Reply to Objection 1: Grace suffices a man for all whereby he is
ordained to beatitude; nevertheless, it effects some of these by
itself---as to make him pleasing to God, and the like; and some
others through the medium of the virtues which proceed from grace.
Reply to Objection 2: A heroic or godlike habit only differs from
virtue commonly so called by a more perfect mode, inasmuch as one is
disposed to good in a higher way than is common to all. Hence it is
not hereby proved that Christ had not the virtues, but that He had
them 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" (cf. FS, Question 61, Article 5).
Reply to Objection 3: Liberality and magnificence are praiseworthy
in regard to riches, inasmuch as anyone does not esteem wealth to the
extent of wishing to retain it, so as to forego what ought to be done.
But he esteems them least who wholly despises them, and casts them
aside for love of perfection. And hence by altogether contemning all
riches, Christ showed the highest kind of liberality and
magnificence; although He also performed the act of liberality, as
far as it became Him, by causing to be distributed to the poor what
was given to Himself. Hence, when our Lord said to Judas (Jn.
13:21), "That which thou dost do quickly," the disciples
understood our Lord to have ordered him to give something to the poor.
But Christ had no evil desires whatever, as will be shown (Question
15, Articles 1,2); yet He was not thereby prevented from
having temperance, which is the more perfect in man, as he is without
evil desires. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii,
9), the temperate man differs from the continent in this---that
the temperate has not the evil desires which the continent suffers.
Hence, taking continence in this sense, as the Philosopher takes
it, Christ, from the very fact that He had all virtue, had not
continence, since it is not a virtue, but something less than virtue.
|
|