Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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 (1.2, 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 (1.2, 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. 1.2, 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.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in christo non fuerint virtutes. Christus enim habuit abundantiam gratiae. Sed gratia sufficit ad omnia recte agendum, secundum illud II Cor. XII, sufficit tibi gratia mea.

Ergo in christo non fuerunt virtutes.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, secundum philosophum, VII ethic., virtus dividitur contra quendam heroicum sive divinum habitum, qui attribuitur hominibus divinis.

Hoc autem maxime convenit christo. Ergo christus non habuit virtutes, sed aliquid altius virtute.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, virtutes omnes simul habentur. Sed christo non fuit conveniens habere simul omnes virtutes, sicut patet de liberalitate et magnificentia, quae habent actum suum circa divitias, quas christus contempsit, secundum illud Matth. VIII, filius hominis non habet ubi caput suum reclinet.

Temperantia etiam et continentia sunt circa concupiscentias pravas, quae in christo non fuerunt.

Ergo christus non habuit virtutes.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod super illud Psalmi, sed in lege domini voluntas eius, dicit Glossa, hic ostenditur christus plenus omni bono.

Sed bona qualitas mentis est virtus.

Ergo christus fuit plenus omni virtute.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, sicut gratia respicit essentiam animae, ita virtus respicit eius potentiam. Unde oportet quod, sicut potentiae animae derivantur ab eius essentia, ita virtutes sunt quaedam derivationes gratiae.

Quanto autem aliquod principium est perfectius, tanto magis imprimit suos effectus. Unde, cum gratia christi fuerit perfectissima, consequens est quod ex ipsa processerint virtutes ad perficiendum singulas potentias animae, quantum ad omnes animae actus. Et ita christus habuit omnes virtutes.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gratia sufficit homini quantum ad omnia quibus ordinatur ad beatitudinem. Horum tamen quaedam perficit gratia immediate per seipsam, sicut gratum facere deo, et alia huiusmodi, quaedam autem mediantibus virtutibus, quae ex gratia procedunt.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod habitus ille heroicus vel divinus non differt a virtute communiter dicta nisi secundum perfectiorem modum, inquantum scilicet aliquis est dispositus ad bonum quodam altiori modo quam communiter omnibus competat.

Unde per hoc non ostenditur quod christus non habuit virtutes, sed quod habuit eas perfectissime, ultra communem modum.

Sicut etiam Plotinus posuit quendam sublimem modum virtutum, quas esse dixit purgati animi.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod liberalitas et magnificentia commendantur circa divitias inquantum aliquis non tantum appretiatur divitias quod velit eas retinere praetermittendo id quod fieri oportet. Ille autem minime divitias appretiatur qui penitus eas contemnit et abiicit propter perfectionis amorem. Et ideo in hoc ipso quod christus omnes divitias contempsit, ostendit in se summum gradum liberalitatis et magnificentiae. Licet etiam liberalitatis actum exercuerit, secundum quod sibi conveniens erat faciendo pauperibus erogari quae sibi dabantur, unde, cum dominus dixit Iudae, Ioan. XIII, quod facis, fac citius, discipuli intellexerunt dominum mandasse quod egenis aliquid daret.

Concupiscentias autem pravas christus omnino non habuit, sicut infra patebit.

Propter hoc tamen non excluditur quin habuerit temperantiam, quae tanto perfectior est in homine quanto magis pravis concupiscentiis caret.

Unde, secundum philosophum, in VII ethic., temperatus in hoc differt a continente, quod temperatus non habet pravas concupiscentias, quas continens patitur.

Unde, sic accipiendo continentiam sicut philosophus accipit, ex hoc ipso quod christus habuit omnem virtutem, non habuit continentiam, quae non est virtus, sed aliquid minus virtute.