Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there was faith in Christ. For faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, e.g. temperance and liberality. Now these were in Christ, as stated above (Article 2). Much more, therefore, was there faith in Him.

Objection 2: Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not Himself, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But of Christ it is said (Heb. 12:2) that He is "the author and finisher of our faith." Therefore there was faith in Him before all others.

Objection 3: Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the blessed. But in the blessed there is faith; for on Rm. 1:17, "the justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith," a gloss says: "From the faith of words and hope to the faith of things and sight." Therefore it would seem that in Christ also there was faith, since it implies nothing imperfect.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 11:1): "Faith is the evidence of things that appear not." But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (Jn. 21:17): "Thou knowest all things." Therefore there was no faith in Christ.

I answer that, As was said above (2.2, Question 1, Article 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence fully, as will be made clear (Question 34, Article 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him.

Reply to Objection 1: Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, seeing that it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a certain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although the moral virtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with regard to their matter.

Reply to Objection 2: The merit of faith consists in this---that man through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to Rm. 1:5: "For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name." Now Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8: "Becoming obedient unto death." And hence He taught nothing pertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself.

Reply to Objection 3: As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that "whereby such things as are not seen are believed." But faith in things seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain similitude with regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in christo fuerit fides.

Fides enim est nobilior virtus quam virtutes morales, puta temperantia et liberalitas. Huiusmodi autem virtutes fuerunt in christo, ut dictum est.

Multum ergo magis fuit in eo fides.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, christus non docuit virtutes quas ipse non habuit, secundum illud Act. I, coepit iesus facere et docere.

Sed de christo dicitur, Heb. XII, quod est auctor et consummator fidei.

Ergo in eo maxime fuit fides.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quidquid est imperfectionis excluditur a beatis. Sed in beatis est fides, nam super illud Rom. I, iustitia dei revelatur in eo ex fide in fidem, dicit Glossa, de fide verborum et spei in fidem rerum et speciei.

Ergo videtur quod etiam in christo fuerit fides, cum nihil imperfectionis importet.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. XI, quod fides est argumentum non apparentium.

Sed christo nihil fuit non apparens, secundum illud quod dixit ei Petrus, Ioan. Ult., tu omnia nosti.

Ergo in christo non fuit fides.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, obiectum fidei est res divina non visa. Habitus autem virtutis, sicut et quilibet alius, recipit speciem ab obiecto. Et ideo, excluso quod res divina non sit visa, excluditur ratio fidei.

Christus autem in primo instanti suae conceptionis plene vidit deum per essentiam, ut infra patebit.

Unde fides in eo esse non potuit.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fides est nobilior virtutibus moralibus, quia est circa nobiliorem materiam, sed tamen importat quendam defectum in comparatione ad illam materiam, qui defectus in christo non fuit. Et ideo non potuit in eo esse fides, licet fuerint in eo virtutes morales, quae in sui ratione huiusmodi defectum non important per comparationem ad suas materias.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod meritum fidei consistit in hoc quod homo, ex obedientia dei, assentit istis quae non videt, secundum illud Rom. I, ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus pro nomine eius.

Obedientiam autem ad deum plenissime habuit christus, secundum illud philipp. II, factus est obediens usque ad mortem.

Et sic nihil ad meritum pertinens docuit quod ipse excellentius non impleret.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Glossa ibidem dicit, fides proprie est qua creduntur quae non videntur.

Sed fides quae est rerum visarum, improprie dicitur, et secundum quandam similitudinem, quantum ad certitudinem aut firmitatem adhaesionis.