2. Rejection of the Opinion

12. But there are multiple objections to this opinion.

First because charity is the most excellent of the gifts of God, according to Augustine On the Trinity 15.19 n.37, and, what is more, according to the Apostle I Corinthians 13.2-3, “If I have fortitude and hand my body over to be burned” (which seems to be in the un-human way, because it is to ask to be burned for God), “but have not charity, it profits me nothing.” Therefore, it does not seem that any good perfects more excellently than charity does, which however is a virtue and of the first degree [n.7], if we are speaking of the moral and theological virtues.

13. Further, as to things terrible, the case is that the human will holds rightly to the mean through the habit of fortitude; therefore it will hold to the mean more rightly [sc. the second degree] and most rightly [sc. the third degree] as far as is possible for human nature, if it is possible. Either it is possible, then, from the same habit of fortitude of the same species to tend to the mean according to degrees that do not vary the species, and so a habit the same in species disposes one to endure something terrible in the supreme perfect way as in the lowest way. Or if not from the same habit but a different one, then the habit that disposes one to endure in the lowest degree is of necessity imperfect as to its act and object, because it cannot have perfection about enduring terrible things; but, in order to be perfectly disposed with respect to them, one needs to have a habit different in species. But a plurality of species should not, it seems, be posited without manifest necessity, unless one virtue does not suffice (which does not appear in this case).a

a.a [Interpolation] This can be got expressly from the Philosopher, Ethics 7.1.1145a15-35, and from Macrobius, Dream of Scipio I ch.8 nn.5-11, and from Henry [n.6], that all the virtues, if they are perfect, have one degree. Therefore...

14. Further, Christ was saddened during his passion (as said in d.15 n.65), and generally every martyr, left to himself if no miracle with respect to him is performed, endures whatever he voluntarily endures with some sadness [cf. d.15 n.62], as is plain from the passage of Augustine On the Trinity 13.7 n.10 [also City of God 14.10], where he argues against the philosophers who say they are blessed because they had whatever they wanted (for if prosperity befell them, they wanted it, and if adversity befell them, they wanted it, because they endured it patiently). He argues against them that in adversity they did not have what they wanted, because (as far as concerned themselves) they did not want adversity to happen to them; but if adversity did happen, they wanted to endure it patiently lest, by losing patience, they should be more miserable. And this seems persuasive, because patience is not possible about something desirable in itself. The martyrs in this life, therefore, when they endured adversity, had something that they did not in every way want, because the object of their patience was not in its absolute idea something desirable and wantable, but they endured it patiently because of God.

15. Further, it is impossible for the same person to do the same act humanly, superhumanly, and un-humanly at the same time. Therefore, when one has the gift of the Holy Spirit, the virtue acquired previously or infused in baptism is extinguished; or if it remains, it will not be able to issue in act, or it will not be needed, for one will have power for one’s act from the more perfect gift. The beatitudes will in the same way remove the necessity for the virtues and the gifts, which seems unacceptable, especially if the discussion is about the theological virtues, for charity is not extinguished in the fatherland, nor faith and hope in the wayfarer.

16. Further, the words ‘superhuman’ and ‘un-human’ are metaphorical, for every action of a man, properly speaking, is human. For just as a right action must conform to the object, to the end, and to the other circumstances, so also must it conform to the doer himself (for it does not befit me to do what befits a king, and much more does it not befit me to do what befits an angel). So, in order for a man’s action to be right, he must do it in a human way. Therefore, whatever habit disposes a man simply to do something in a human way, disposes him absolutely to doing it.

17. Further, if someone were always to be praying and the gift of understanding were to be given him and he did not exercise himself about things of faith, he would not be acting in a human way about these things, because he would not possess acquired faith - without which infused faith does not do its job [cf. Lectura III d.23 nn.48-50, d.25 n.35]. Yet he could act in a superhuman way because he would, according to you, have the gift of understanding. Therefore, he could act about things of faith more excellently than someone else who was skilled in Sacred Scripture - which we do not experience; on the contrary, anyone else (including this sort of person) would perhaps more easily err about things of faith than another who was well skilled in Scripture.

18. Again, whatever one can be well ordered and active about in a human way, one can be so in a superhuman and un-human way; therefore, there will be as many virtues as there are gifts and beatitudes [which is false].

19. Further, true beatitude would be found in the acts of one of the beatitudes as the supreme habit [d.36 n.26; Prol. n.287].