Part II (Pars Prima Secundae) Part 100 (1/2)
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 11:6): ”Without faith it is impossible to please G.o.d”; and this evidently belongs most to charity, according to Prov. 8:17: ”I love them that love me.” Again, it is by hope that we are brought to charity, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 4). Therefore it is not possible to have charity without faith and hope.
_I answer that,_ Charity signifies not only the love of G.o.d, but also a certain friends.h.i.+p with Him; which implies, besides love, a certain mutual return of love, together with mutual communion, as stated in _Ethic._ viii, 2. That this belongs to charity is evident from 1 John 4:16: ”He that abideth in charity, abideth in G.o.d, and G.o.d in him,”
and from 1 Cor. 1:9, where it is written: ”G.o.d is faithful, by Whom you are called unto the fellows.h.i.+p of His Son.” Now this fellows.h.i.+p of man with G.o.d, which consists in a certain familiar colloquy with Him, is begun here, in this life, by grace, but will be perfected in the future life, by glory; each of which things we hold by faith and hope. Wherefore just as friends.h.i.+p with a person would be impossible, if one disbelieved in, or despaired of, the possibility of their fellows.h.i.+p or familiar colloquy; so too, friends.h.i.+p with G.o.d, which is charity, is impossible without faith, so as to believe in this fellows.h.i.+p and colloquy with G.o.d, and to hope to attain to this fellows.h.i.+p. Therefore charity is quite impossible without faith and hope.
Reply Obj. 1: Charity is not any kind of love of G.o.d, but that love of G.o.d, by which He is loved as the object of bliss, to which object we are directed by faith and hope.
Reply Obj. 2: Charity is the root of faith and hope, in so far as it gives them the perfection of virtue. But faith and hope as such are the precursors of charity, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 4), and so charity is impossible without them.
Reply Obj. 3: In Christ there was neither faith nor hope, on account of their implying an imperfection. But instead of faith, He had manifest vision, and instead of hope, full comprehension [*See above, Q. 4, A. 3]: so that in Him was perfect charity.
________________________
QUESTION 66
OF EQUALITY AMONG THE VIRTUES (In Six Articles)
We must now consider equality among the virtues: under which head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether one virtue can be greater or less than another?
(2) Whether all the virtues existing together in one subject are equal?
(3) Of moral virtue in comparison with intellectual virtue;
(4) Of the moral virtues as compared with one another;
(5) Of the intellectual virtues in comparison with one another;
(6) Of the theological virtues in comparison with one another.
________________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 66, Art. 1]
Whether One Virtue Can Be Greater or Less Than Another?
Objection 1: It would seem that one virtue cannot be greater or less than another. For it is written (Apoc. 21:16) that the sides of the city of Jerusalem are equal; and a gloss says that the sides denote the virtues. Therefore all virtues are equal; and consequently one cannot be greater than another.
Obj. 2: Further, a thing that, by its nature, consists in a maximum, cannot be more or less. Now the nature of virtue consists in a maximum, for virtue is ”the limit of power,” as the Philosopher states (De Coelo i, text. 116); and Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19) that ”virtues are very great boons, and no one can use them to evil purpose.” Therefore it seems that one virtue cannot be greater or less than another.
Obj. 3: Further, the quant.i.ty of an effect is measured by the power of the agent. But perfect, viz. infused virtues, are from G.o.d Whose power is uniform and infinite. Therefore it seems that one virtue cannot be greater than another.
_On the contrary,_ Wherever there can be increase and greater abundance, there can be inequality. Now virtues admit of greater abundance and increase: for it is written (Matt. 5:20): ”Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”: and (Prov. 15:5): ”In abundant justice there is the greatest strength (_virtus_).” Therefore it seems that a virtue can be greater or less than another.
_I answer that,_ When it is asked whether one virtue can be greater than another, the question can be taken in two senses. First, as applying to virtues of different species. In this sense it is clear that one virtue is greater than another; since a cause is always more excellent than its effect; and among effects, those nearest to the cause are the most excellent. Now it is clear from what has been said (Q. 18, A. 5; Q. 61, A. 2) that the cause and root of human good is the reason. Hence prudence which perfects the reason, surpa.s.ses in goodness the other moral virtues which perfect the appet.i.tive power, in so far as it partakes of reason. And among these, one is better than another, according as it approaches nearer to the reason.
Consequently justice, which is in the will, excels the remaining moral virtues; and fort.i.tude, which is in the irascible part, stands before temperance, which is in the concupiscible, which has a smaller share of reason, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6.
The question can be taken in another way, as referring to virtues of the same species. In this way, according to what was said above (Q.
52, A. 1), when we were treating of the intensity of habits, virtue may be said to be greater or less in two ways: first, in itself; secondly with regard to the subject that partakes of it. If we consider it in itself, we shall call it great or little, according to the things to which it extends. Now whosoever has a virtue, e.g.
temperance, has it in respect of whatever temperance extends to. But this does not apply to science and art: for every grammarian does not know everything relating to grammar. And in this sense the Stoics said rightly, as Simplicius states in his _Commentary on the Predicaments,_ that virtue cannot be more or less, as science and art can; because the nature of virtue consists in a maximum.