Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
-
*
Matthew
26:6
And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper,
-
*
Mark
14:3
And when he was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, and was at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard. And breaking the alabaster box, she poured it out upon his head.
*H Jesus therefore, six days before the pasch, came to Bethania, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life.
Ver. 1. On the tenth day of the month the Jews were accustomed to collect the lambs, and other things in preparation for the ensuing great feast. On this day, likewise, they generally had a small feast, or treat for their friends, at which time Jesus coming to Bethania, joined his friends in their entertainment. This was most likely in the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Martha served at the table herself, thinking herself happy in waiting on Jesus, whom she considered as her Lord and God. Lazarus was one of them that were at table, to shew himself alive, by speaking and eating with them, and thus confounding the inexcusable incredulity of the Jews. And Mary too shewed her loving attachment to Jesus, by anointing his feet with her precious ointment. Theophyl. S. Aug. and S. Chrys.
*Lapide
. Then Jesus six days before the Passover, c. He came from Ephraim, as the Passover was drawing on when He was to die. And He came to Bethany to prepare Himself for it; nay more, to offer Himself for death, and furnish an opportunity for it through the covetousness of Judas. This explains why He first went to Bethany. For the chief priests had ordered that He should be seized. And He, knowing this by divine inspiration, came to Bethany, where He had many well-wishers, among whom He could remain in security, and might thence shortly afterwards enter Jerusalem in solemn pomp on Palm Sunday, as the Paschal Lamb who was to be offered for the sins of the world. Bethany, which is close to Mount Olivet, signifies in Hebrew the house of obedience. From this place He wished to go to His Cross. For as the Gloss says, By being obedient even as far as to the death of the Cross, He taught His Church obedience, on the Mount of Oil, i.e ., the Mount of Mercy, which cannot be hid, and by which He raises up those who are buried in grievous sins. A supper is there made by the faith and devotion of the righteous. Martha ministers, when each of the faithful offers to the Lord works of devotion, and Lazarus, i.e ., those who have been raised up (from sin), with those who have remained stedfast in their righteousness, joyfully feast on the Lord's presence. Six days before the Passover. It was on the Friday evening that He came from Ephraim. On the following Sabbath they made Him a feast, and on the next day (Palm Sunday) He in solemn manner entered Jerusalem. For the Passover that year fell on the Thursday of that week. He came to Bethany on the Friday, because it was not lawful to journey on the Sabbath. Symbolically, The Gloss says, "God made all things in six days. On the sixth He made man; in the sixth age of the world He willed to redeem him. He suffered on the sixth day of the week, and died at the sixth hour." Whom Jesus raised from the dead. That by His presence He might revive the memory of this miracle, and arouse the people to attend Him on His solemn entry into Jerusalem, and shout Hosanna.*Lapide
. There they made Him a supper, c. To show that He had really risen; as S. Augustine says ( in loc .). "He lived, He talked, He partook of the meal: the truth was set forth, the unbelief of the Jews was confounded."*Lapide
. Mary (Magdalene) therefore (that she might not be wanting on her part, and in order specially to honour Christ, and to surpass all others in her services, as she surpassed them in love) look a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly. Ointment of nard was composed of several sweet scents (see Pliny H. N. xiii. 2), and was thick. But this was liquid, as S. Matt. ( Mat 26:7 ) says that it was poured on His head. Liquids are very often weighed in vessels, or anyhow the nard itself from which the ointment was made. Or this pound was rather a measure of quantity, not of weight. Mystically. S. Augustine says, "The ointment was righteousness. Therefore it was of due weight" (libra). The Gloss says, "Mary before anointed His feet as a penitent; but now, when the righteousness of the perfect, and not the mere rudiments of penitence, are designated, she anoints His head and His feet. The pound of ointment is the perfection of righteousness. He anoints the head, who preaches high doctrines respecting Christ; He anoints the feet who respects the least commandments." But what is "pistic nard"? (1.) The Commentary on S. Matthew (in S. Jerome) says "mystic," which is absurd. (2.) S. Augustine says it is so called from the place whence it was brought. But the place itself is uncertain. (3.) Maldonatus derives it α̉πὸ του̃ πίνειν , meaning that it was liquid, and so could be drunk, other ointments being thick and clotted. (4.) Others derive it from πιέξω , squeezed or pressed out. (5.) As if from πίστις , pure, unadulterated, as nard frequently was. (See Pliny H. N. xii. 13.) So Euthymius, Theophylact, on Mar 12 , Baronius, Ribera, Jansenius, Toletus and others. (6.) Pistici is the same as spicati by a change of letters. This was the best kind of ointment. (This point treated at very great length.) Morally. Here learn that the good works, with which we anoint Christ, ought to be quite free from fault, and of the very best kind. Compare the offerings of Cain and Abel. (See Psa 56.,20:4 , and Dan 3:40 (Vulg.), Lev 3:16 , Num 18:17 , Num 18:29 , and Lev 23:19 .) And anointed the feet of Jesus. S. Matt. adds "and the head." Alcuin explains mystically, "The Head is the loftiness of the Godhead, the feet the humility of the Incarnation. Or the Head is Christ, the feet the poor who are His members. We anoint them when we give them alms." And wiped His feet with her hair. A hysteron proteron. For first she wiped, and then anointed His feet. For had she anointed His feet first, and then wiped them with her hair, she would have anointed her own hair, (which she did not wish to do,) and which indeed she counted unworthy of such anointing, and not His feet. Moreover, this sweet-scented and precious ointment was not to be wiped off, but left on His feet, to give them ease. Her hair. To soil those hairs, of which she used to be vain, with the dust of His feet, and also that she might with the deepest reverence and humility place her whole head beneath His feet. For S. Chrysostom says, she placed the noblest part of her body beneath His feet, and she approached Him not as man but as God. And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. S. Augustine says, mystically, the whole world was filled with the good fame of her piety and virtue. As S. Paul says, "We are a sweet savour of Christ" ( 2Co 2:14 ) to the good, of life unto life; to the wicked, of death unto death as was here the case. Whence it follows:*Lapide
. Then said one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, (5.) why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? SS. Matt. and Mark add, "Why was this waste of the ointment made?" Bede replies, "It was no waste, but for the rite of burial; nor is it wonderful that she offered Me the sweet savour of Faith, when I am about to shed my blood for her."*H Now he said this not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief and, having the purse, carried the things that were put therein.
Ver. 6. Judas did not then begin to be wicked: he followed Christ, not in heart, but in body only. This our Master tolerated, to give us a lesson to tolerate the bad, rather than divide the body. S. Aug. in Joan. tract. 50.
*Lapide
. This he said, c. Nay worse, sacrilegious, "for he seized for his own use, that which was given for a sacred purpose," says Theophylact. "He carried the money by his office, he carried it off by theft," says S. Augustine. He wished the ointment to be sold, and the price of it given to him; and since he knew that Christ did not wish so large a sum to be kept in his purse, but rather to be distributed amongst the poor, he would have distributed some of it to the poor, and have purloined the rest for himself. See here how opportunity makes the thief, and how dangerous it is for holy men in "religion" to handle moneys, those especially which belong to the whole community. For if covetousness suggests it, a portion is easily diverted to the use of themselves or their families. But why did Jesus entrust to him the bag, knowing him to be a thief? I answer, Because Judas was more qualified than the other Apostles to make purchases. And He allowed the theft, because an opportunity was furnished thereby for the betrayal and death which He courted. Again S. Augustine, "Because the Church would afterwards have its coffers, He admitted thieves, in order that His Church might tolerate powerful thieves, even when suffering from them, to teach us that the wicked must be tolerated, for fear of dividing the body of Christ. Do thou, the good, bear with the evil, that thou mayest attain to the reward of the good." S. Chrysostom adds, "The Lord committed the bags to a thief, in order to cut off any excuse for betraying Him, and that it might not seem as if he betrayed Him from want of money." But Theophylact says, "Some maintain that as the least of the Apostles he undertook the management of the money." Lastly, S. Bernard ( de Consid. iv. 6) teaches us "that Christ wished in 'this' way to teach Prelates readily to entrust the management of temporal affairs to any one, but to reserve the ordering of spiritual matters to themselves: though many do exactly the contrary." Again, Christ acted thus, to keep us from being surprised, if in the assemblies, monasteries, and congregations of holy men, there be occasionally found some vicious and scandalous persons; and accordingly S. Augustine ( Epist. 137 , nunc 75), when one of his monks had caused scandal, at which the people cried out against him, prudently replied, "However vigilant may be the discipline of my house, I am but a man, I am living among men: nor do I dare to claim for myself, that my house should be better than Noah's ark, where among eight men one was found reprobate, or better than the house of Abraham, when it was said, Cast out the bond-woman and her son; or better than the house of Isaac, to whom it was said respecting the twin children, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated: or better than the house of Jacob, when his son defiled his father's bed; or better than the house of David, whose son lay with his sister, and where another son rebelled against his holy and gentle father; or better than they who were associated with the Lord Christ Himself, where eleven righteous men tolerated Judas, that perfidious thief; or, lastly, better than heaven from which the angels fell." Doubtless God permits it in His wise providence, in order that by the wickedness of one or two the goodness and sanctity of others may shine out the more by way of contrast, as light amid darkness, gold amongst lead, the sun between the clouds, a wise man among fools, shines forth only the more resplendently. For contraries opposed to each other are the more marked. ( See. Ecclus. xxxiii. 15, and notes in loc .) And had the bag, c. From this Jansen and others rightly gather that it is lawful for the Church to have coffers and wealth, and that it does not derogate from perfection to have a common purse, for reasonable and moderate expenses. For Jesus did nothing which implied imperfection, being the teacher of all perfection. In order to understand this thoroughly, observe that though Christ, by reason of His Hypostatic Union with the Word, had a pre-eminent and (as it were) Divine dominion over all creatures, yet professed poverty, that is, an abandonment of ownership, special ownership, in order to be the teacher and example of a more perfect life. See Mat 8:20 , Mat 19:21 , Mat 19:27 . Observe, secondly, that Christ had absolute control of the offerings made to Him by the faithful, for the common good, and not for His special use. They belonged to the whole College of the Apostles. He held them not as though He were their sole owner. See John iv. 8, vi. 5. It follows therefore that it does not in any way detract from their perfection for Religious orders to have goods in common. (See John xxii. Extravag. Ad Conditorem .) In some cases this is the most perfect way, in others not. But Christ at one time seemed to have lost all claim even to a share of the common property. (See Luk 8:3 .) This seems to be all that Nicholas IV. means. (Can. Exiit qui seminat. De Verb. Signif. in vi., though he apparently contradicts John 22) S. Thomas ( see Secund. Quæst. clxxxviii. Art. 7) proves à priori that the possession of goods in common does not hinder perfection. Poverty, he says, is only an instrument of perfection, as taking away anxiety in acquiring and preserving riches, the love of them, and our priding ourselves in them. But to have goods in common does not give rise to any of these evils; and so far from hindering charity, it even promotes it. "For it is manifest," says S. Thomas, "that to store up things which are necessary to man, and purchased at a fitting time, causes the least possible anxiety." All founders of Religious Orders have sanctioned this. And hence resulted the Constitution of Justinian, that the goods of those who became monks should belong as a matter of course to their monasteries. For the whole meaning of poverty turns on not having anything belonging especially to one's own self, though there may be some common fund, from which, according to the Apostolic Rule, distribution should be made to each, as need may require. ( See Act 2:44-45Act 2:44-45 ; Act 4:35 , and the Notes thereon .) This is just what S. Jerome says to the "Religious" of his own day ( Epist. xxii.) "No one has any right so say, I have not a tunic, or a coat, or a bed of plaited bulrushes. For the head of the Community so divides the common stock, that every one has what he asks for. And if any begins to fall ill, he is transferred to a larger cell, and is so carefully attended by the older monks, that he longs not for the delights of cities, or the tenderness of a mother." The fathers and schoolmen teach everywhere the same thing. (See Suarez par. iii. Quæst. xl. disp. xxviii. § 2, Bellarm. de Summo Pont. iv. 14, Soto de Just. iv. Quæst. i. art. 1.) Nicolas IV. ( ut supr. ) says that to have common purses is to detract from perfection, for Christ in this matter adapted Himself to the weaker brethren, that He might be an example to all. Suarez replies, that Nicolas only asserted that in the matter of poverty that was the least rigid rule which allowed them to have common purses, but that it must not be concluded from this that the other rule was absolutely the most perfect. For though less perfect, as common poverty, it may be more perfect in charity, or some other virtue. For Nicolas is speaking of the Franciscans (of whom he was one), whose Order had for its scope and end the extremest poverty, in order to be conformed to S. Francis. But other orders have other pious and holy ends, for which it is more convenient to have goods in common. And therefore this is more fitting and perfect in their case. Carthusians observe silence and solitude. Others practise great austerity. But those who are employed in preaching and missions to unbelievers, need great strength to endure the great labours of their order, and make up for austerity of living by charity towards their neighbours. Both act in a manner suited to their order, and the end they propose to themselves. Different ends require different means. The Council of Trent allows all "Religious," except the Franciscans, to own Real Property ( bona immobilia ).* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 55, Article 7
[II-II, Q. 55, Art. 7]
Whether We Should Be Solicitous About the Future?
Objection 1: It would seem that we should be solicitous about the future. For it is written (Prov. 6:6-8): "Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways and learn wisdom; which, although she hath no guide, nor master . . . provideth her meat for herself in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest." Now this is to be solicitous about the future. Therefore solicitude about the future is praiseworthy.
Obj. 2: Further, solicitude pertains to prudence. But prudence is chiefly about the future, since its principal part is _foresight of future things,_ as stated above (Q. 49, A. 6, ad 1). Therefore it is virtuous to be solicitous about the future.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever puts something by that he may keep it for the morrow, is solicitous about the future. Now we read (John 12:6) that Christ had a bag for keeping things in, which Judas carried, and (Acts 4:34-37) that the Apostles kept the price of the land, which had been laid at their feet. Therefore it is lawful to be solicitous about the future.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 6:34): "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow"; where "tomorrow" stands for the future, as Jerome says in his commentary on this passage.
_I answer that,_ No work can be virtuous, unless it be vested with its due circumstances, and among these is the due time, according to Eccles. 8:6, "There is a time and opportunity for every business"; which applies not only to external deeds but also to internal solicitude. For every time has its own fitting proper solicitude; thus solicitude about the crops belongs to the summer time, and solicitude about the vintage to the time of autumn. Accordingly if a man were solicitous about the vintage during the summer, he would be needlessly forestalling the solicitude belonging to a future time. Hence Our Lord forbids such like excessive solicitude, saying: "Be . . . not solicitous for tomorrow," wherefore He adds, "for the morrow will be solicitous for itself," that is to say, the morrow will have its own solicitude, which will be burden enough for the soul. This is what He means by adding: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," namely, the burden of solicitude.
Reply Obj. 1: The ant is solicitous at a befitting time, and it is this that is proposed for our example.
Reply Obj. 2: Due foresight of the future belongs to prudence. But it would be an inordinate foresight or solicitude about the future, if a man were to seek temporal things, to which the terms "past" and "future" apply, as ends, or if he were to seek them in excess of the needs of the present life, or if he were to forestall the time for solicitude.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17), "when we see a servant of God taking thought lest he lack these needful things, we must not judge him to be solicitous for the morrow, since even Our Lord deigned for our example to have a purse, and we read in the Acts of the Apostles that they procured the necessary means of livelihood in view of the future on account of a threatened famine. Hence Our Lord does not condemn those who according to human custom, provide themselves with such things, but those who oppose themselves to God for the sake of these things." _______________________
EIGHTH
*S Part 3, Ques 188, Article 7
[II-II, Q. 188, Art. 7]
Whether Religious Perfection Is Diminished by Possessing Something in Common?
Objection 1: It would seem that religious perfection is diminished by possessing something in common. For our Lord said (Matt. 19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast and give to the poor." Hence it is clear that to lack worldly wealth belongs to the perfection of Christian life. Now those who possess something in common do not lack worldly wealth. Therefore it would seem that they do not quite reach to the perfection of Christian life.
Obj. 2: Further, the perfection of the counsels requires that one should be without worldly solicitude; wherefore the Apostle in giving the counsel of virginity said (1 Cor. 7:32): "I would have you to be without solicitude." Now it belongs to the solicitude of the present life that certain people keep something to themselves for the morrow; and this solicitude was forbidden His disciples by our Lord (Matt. 6:34) saying: "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow." Therefore it would seem that the perfection of Christian life is diminished by having something in common.
Obj. 3: Further, possessions held in common belong in some way to each member of the community; wherefore Jerome (Ep. lx ad Heliod. Episc.) says in reference to certain people: "They are richer in the monastery than they had been in the world; though serving the poor Christ they have wealth which they had not while serving the rich devil; the Church rejects them now that they are rich, who in the world were beggars." But it is derogatory to religious perfection that one should possess wealth of one's own. Therefore it is also derogatory to religious perfection to possess anything in common.
Obj. 4: Further, Gregory (Dial. iii, 14) relates of a very holy man named Isaac, that "when his disciples humbly signified that he should accept the possessions offered to him for the use of the monastery, he being solicitous for the safeguarding of his poverty, held firmly to his opinion, saying: A monk who seeks earthly possessions is no monk at all": and this refers to possessions held in common, and which were offered him for the common use of the monastery. Therefore it would seem destructive of religious perfection to possess anything in common.
Obj. 5: Further, our Lord in prescribing religious perfection to His disciples, said (Matt. 10:9, 10): "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor script for your journey." By these words, as Jerome says in his commentary, "He reproves those philosophers who are commonly called Bactroperatae [*i.e. staff and scrip bearers], who as despising the world and valuing all things at naught carried their pantry about with them." Therefore it would seem derogatory to religious perfection that one should keep something whether for oneself or for the common use.
_On the contrary,_ Prosper [*Julianus Pomerius, among the works of Prosper] says (De Vita Contempl. ix) and his words are quoted (XII, qu. 1, can. Expedit): "It is sufficiently clear both that for the sake of perfection one should renounce having anything of one's own, and that the possession of revenues, which are of course common property, is no hindrance to the perfection of the Church."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 184, A. 3, ad 1; Q. 185, A. 6, ad 1), perfection consists, essentially, not in poverty, but in following Christ, according to the saying of Jerome (Super Matth. xix, 27): "Since it is not enough to leave all, Peter adds that which is perfect, namely, 'We have followed Thee,'" while poverty is like an instrument or exercise for the attainment of perfection. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. i, 7) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings, watchings, meditating on the Scriptures, poverty, and privation of all one's possessions are not perfection, but means of perfection."
Now the privation of one's possessions, or poverty, is a means of perfection, inasmuch as by doing away with riches we remove certain obstacles to charity; and these are chiefly three. The first is the cares which riches bring with them; wherefore our Lord said (Matt. 13:22): "That which was sown [Vulg.: 'He that received the seed'] among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choketh up the word." The second is the love of riches, which increases with the possession of wealth; wherefore Jerome says (Super Matth. xix, 23) that "since it is difficult to despise riches when we have them, our Lord did not say: 'It is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,' but: 'It is difficult.'" The third is vainglory or elation which results from riches, according to Ps. 48:7, "They that trust in their own strength, and glory in the multitude of their riches."
Accordingly the first of these three cannot be altogether separated from riches whether great or small. For man must needs take a certain amount of care in acquiring or keeping external things. But so long as external things are sought or possessed only in a small quantity, and as much as is required for a mere livelihood, such like care does not hinder one much; and consequently is not inconsistent with the perfection of Christian life. For our Lord did not forbid all care, but only such as is excessive and hurtful; wherefore Augustine, commenting on Matt. 6:25, "Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat," says (De Serm. in Monte [*The words quoted are from De Operibus Monach. xxvi]): "In saying this He does not forbid them to procure these things in so far as they needed them, but to be intent on them, and for their sake to do whatever they are bidden to do in preaching the Gospel." Yet the possession of much wealth increases the weight of care, which is a great distraction to man's mind and hinders him from giving himself wholly to God's service. The other two, however, namely the love of riches and taking pride or glorying in riches, result only from an abundance of wealth.
Nevertheless it makes a difference in this matter if riches, whether abundant or moderate, be possessed in private or in common. For the care that one takes of one's own wealth, pertains to love of self, whereby a man loves himself in temporal matters; whereas the care that is given to things held in common pertains to the love of charity which "seeketh not her own," but looks to the common good. And since religion is directed to the perfection of charity, and charity is perfected in "the love of God extending to contempt of self" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xiv, 28,] it is contrary to religious perfection to possess anything in private. But the care that is given to common goods may pertain to charity, although it may prove an obstacle to some higher act of charity, such as divine contemplation or the instructing of one's neighbor. Hence it is evident that to have excessive riches in common, whether in movable or in immovable property, is an obstacle to perfection, though not absolutely incompatible with it; while it is not an obstacle to religious perfection to have enough external things, whether movables or immovables, as suffice for a livelihood, if we consider poverty in relation to the common end of religious orders, which is to devote oneself to the service of God. But if we consider poverty in relation to the special end of any religious order, then this end being presupposed, a greater or lesser degree of poverty is adapted to that religious order; and each religious order will be the more perfect in respect of poverty, according as it professes a poverty more adapted to its end. For it is evident that for the purpose of the outward and bodily works of the active life a man needs the assistance of outward things, whereas few are required for contemplation. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that "many things are needed for action, and the more so, the greater and nobler the actions are. But the contemplative man requires no such things for the exercise of his act: he needs only the necessaries; other things are an obstacle to his contemplation." Accordingly it is clear that a religious order directed to the bodily actions of the active life, such as soldiering or the lodging of guests, would be imperfect if it lacked common riches; whereas those religious orders which are directed to the contemplative life are the more perfect, according as the poverty they profess burdens them with less care for temporal things. And the care of temporal things is so much a greater obstacle to religious life as the religious life requires a greater care of spiritual things.
Now it is manifest that a religious order established for the purpose of contemplating and of giving to others the fruits of one's contemplation by teaching and preaching, requires greater care of spiritual things than one that is established for contemplation only. Wherefore it becomes a religious order of this kind to embrace a poverty that burdens one with the least amount of care. Again it is clear that to keep what one has acquired at a fitting time for one's necessary use involves the least burden of care. Wherefore a threefold degree of poverty corresponds to the three aforesaid degrees of religious life. For it is fitting that a religious order which is directed to the bodily actions of the active life should have an abundance of riches in common; that the common possession of a religious order directed to contemplation should be more moderate, unless the said religious be bound, either themselves or through others, to give hospitality or to assist the poor; and that those who aim at giving the fruits of their contemplation to others should have their life most exempt from external cares; this being accomplished by their laying up the necessaries of life procured at a fitting time. This, our Lord, the Founder of poverty, taught by His example. For He had a purse which He entrusted to Judas, and in which were kept the things that were offered to Him, as related in John 12:6.
Nor should it be argued that Jerome (Super Matth. xvii, 26) says: "If anyone object that Judas carried money in the purse, we answer that He deemed it unlawful to spend the property of the poor on His own uses," namely by paying the tax--because among those poor His disciples held a foremost place, and the money in Christ's purse was spent chiefly on their needs. For it is stated (John 4:8) that "His disciples were gone into the city to buy meats," and (John 13:29) that the disciples "thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: But those things which we have need of for the festival day, or that he should give something to the poor." From this it is evident that to keep money by, or any other common property for the support of religious of the same order, or of any other poor, is in accordance with the perfection which Christ taught by His example. Moreover, after the resurrection, the disciples from whom all religious orders took their origin kept the price of the lands, and distributed it according as each one had need (Acts 4:34, 35).
Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 184, A. 3, ad 1), this saying of our Lord does not mean that poverty itself is perfection, but that it is the means of perfection. Indeed, as shown above (Q. 186, A. 8), it is the least of the three chief means of perfection; since the vow of continence excels the vow of poverty, and the vow of obedience excels them both. Since, however, the means are sought not for their own sake, but for the sake of the end, a thing is better, not for being a greater instrument, but for being more adapted to the end. Thus a physician does not heal the more the more medicine he gives, but the more the medicine is adapted to the disease. Accordingly it does not follow that a religious order is the more perfect, according as the poverty it professes is more perfect, but according as its poverty is more adapted to the end both common and special. Granted even that the religious order which exceeds others in poverty be more perfect in so far as it is poorer, this would not make it more perfect simply. For possibly some other religious order might surpass it in matters relating to continence, or obedience, and thus be more perfect simply, since to excel in better things is to be better simply.
Reply Obj. 2: Our Lord's words (Matt. 6:34), "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," do not mean that we are to keep nothing for the morrow; for the Blessed Antony shows the danger of so doing, in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. ii, 2), where he says: "It has been our experience that those who have attempted to practice the privation of all means of livelihood, so as not to have the wherewithal to procure themselves food for one day, have been deceived so unawares that they were unable to finish properly the work they had undertaken." And, as Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxiii), "if this saying of our Lord, 'Be not solicitous for tomorrow,' means that we are to lay nothing by for the morrow, those who shut themselves up for many days from the sight of men, and apply their whole mind to a life of prayer, will be unable to provide themselves with these things." Again he adds afterwards: "Are we to suppose that the more holy they are, the less do they resemble the birds?" And further on (De oper. Monach. xxiv): "For if it be argued from the Gospel that they should lay nothing by, they answer rightly: Why then did our Lord have a purse, wherein He kept the money that was collected? Why, in days long gone by, when famine was imminent, was grain sent to the holy fathers? Why did the apostles thus provide for the needs of the saints?"
Accordingly the saying: "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," according to Jerome (Super Matth.) is to be rendered thus: "It is enough that we think of the present; the future being uncertain, let us leave it to God": according to Chrysostom [*Hom. xvi in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "It is enough to endure the toil for necessary things, labor not in excess for unnecessary things": according to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "When we do any good action, we should bear in mind not temporal things which are denoted by the morrow, but eternal things."
Reply Obj. 3: The saying of Jerome applies where there are excessive riches, possessed in private as it were, or by the abuse of which even the individual members of a community wax proud and wanton. But they do not apply to moderate wealth, set by for the common use, merely as a means of livelihood of which each one stands in need. For it amounts to the same that each one makes use of things pertaining to the necessaries of life, and that these things be set by for the common use.
Reply Obj. 4: Isaac refused to accept the offer of possessions, because he feared lest this should lead him to have excessive wealth, the abuse of which would be an obstacle to religious perfection. Hence Gregory adds (Dial. iii, 14): "He was as afraid of forfeiting the security of his poverty, as the rich miser is careful of his perishable wealth." It is not, however, related that he refused to accept such things as are commonly necessary for the upkeep of life.
Reply Obj. 5: The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5, 6) that bread, wine, and the like are natural riches, while money is artificial riches. Hence it is that certain philosophers declined to make use of money, and employed other things, living according to nature. Wherefore Jerome shows by the words of our Lord, Who equally forbade both, that it comes to the same to have money and to possess other things necessary for life. And though our Lord commanded those who were sent to preach not to carry these things on the way, He did not forbid them to be possessed in common. How these words of our Lord should be understood has been shown above (Q. 185, A. 6 ad 2; I-II, Q. 108, A. 2, ad 3). _______________________
EIGHTH
*Lapide
. Then said Jesus, Suffer her to keep this for the day of my burial. In the Greek it is "for the day of my burial hath she kept this," and also in the Syriac ( see notes on Mat 26:12Mat 26:12 , c.) Hear S. Augustine, "He saith not to him, It is on account of thy thefts that thou speakest thus. He knew he was a thief, but was unwilling to expose him. He chose rather to bear with him, and to set us an example of patience in tolerating evil men in the Church."*H For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.
Ver. 8. Me you have not always with you. He speaks of his corporal presence; for by his majesty, by his providence, by his ineffable and invincible grace, he ever fulfils what he said, (Matt. xxviii.) Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. S. Aug. tract. 50 in Joan.
*Lapide
. Much people of the Jews, c. "Curiosity led them," says S. Augustine, "not charity," to see and hear Lazarus, and to ask him where he ha been after death, what he had seen, what he had done? So Cyril, Theophylact, Leontius.*H But the chief priests thought to kill Lazarus also:
Ver. 10. To kill Lazarus. A foolish thought, says Aug. as if Christ who had raised him to life from a natural death, could not also restore him to life, when murdered by them. Wi. — O foolish thought, and blinded rage! As if you could, by putting Lazarus to death, take away power from the Lord; as if Christ, who had already raised one that had died, could not as easily have raised one that was slain. But, lo! he has done both. Lazarus dead, he hath restored to life, and himself slain, he hath raised to life. S. Aug. tract 50. in Joan.
*Lapide
. But the chief priests thought ( ε̉βουλεύσαντο consulted) that they might put Lazarus also to death. See here their virulent envy and malice: envying Jesus His glory. They grudge also Lazarus his life, lest it should add to the glory of Jesus. For the feast of the Passover was at hand, at which all the Jews who flocked together would see Lazarus and wondering at the power of Jesus who had raised him from the dead, would consequently believe on Him. And in order to prevent this, they determine to put him out of the way. But S. Augustine ( in loc .) rightly exclaims against them, "O foolish thought, and blind cruelty! For could not the Lord, who had power to raise him from the dead, have power to raise him up also if he had been put to death? In putting him to death, could ye take away Christ's power? If a dead man seems to you one thing, and one who is put to death another, behold the Lord did both, for He both raised Lazarus who was dead, and Himself also who had been put to death." Lastly, the raising of Lazarus was especially the work of God, and they therefore who were so eager to put him to death, were fighting against God, and challenging Him, as it were, to the contest.*Lapide
. Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus ύπη̃γον , withdrew themselves, deserted their party. This may mean either, "many of the Jews went their way," or else "many went away from the unbelieving Jews, and followed Christ."*Lapide
. But on the next day, i.e. on Palm Sunday, five days before the Passover; the tenth day of the month Nizan, on which day the Lamb (the type of Christ) was to be killed, and on the fourteenth to be brought to Jerusalem. (Exo 12:3 .) See notes to Mat 21:7 .* Footnotes
-
*
Zacharias
9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: BEHOLD THY KING will come to thee, the just and saviour: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass.
-
*
Mark
11:7
And they brought the colt to Jesus. And they lay their garments on him: and he sat upon him.
-
*
Luke
19:35
And they brought him to Jesus. And casting their garments on the colt, they set Jesus thereon.
*Lapide
. The people therefore . . . bare witness, c., to the raising of Lazarus.*Lapide
. For this cause the people also met Him, for that they had heard that He had done this miracle. The people who were present at the raising of Lazarus spread abroad the miracle, affirming that they had seen it. And the strangeness of it so excited the people that they ran in crowds to meet Jesus, and to hail Him as the Messiah.*H The Pharisees therefore said among themselves: Do you see that we prevail nothing? Behold, the whole world is gone after him.
Ver. 19. Do you see that we prevail nothing? [1] Thus said the Pharisees, being vexed that so many followed Christ, even after they had ordered, that whosoever owned him, should be turned out of their synagogues; and after they had employed men to apprehend him, but to no purpose. Wi.
*Lapide
. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how that ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after Him. This is an hyperbole. But a large body, of every age, sex, and rank had gone after Him, old and young, Jews and Gentiles. S. Cyril observes that the Pharisees tacitly prophesied that all the world would be converted to Christ, though they themselves did not understand this. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact consider that they who spoke thus were believers in Christ, or anyhow disposed to believe in Him, and that they addressed in these words those who disbelieved in Him. But S. Cyril, Euthymius, and others, think that they were unbelievers, and enemies of Christ, explaining it thus: We have all of us decided to put Jesus to death. Why do we delay? We have gained nothing by it. It would have been far better, if we had put Him to death at once, before His party had increased, and become so well known. What now is our course of duty? To carry out our intention as quickly as possible. Why do we delay? lf we delay much longer all will go after Him. We shall be beaten by numbers, unless we prevail by craft.*H Now there were certain Gentiles among them, who came up to adore on the festival day.
Ver. 20. Gentiles . . . came up to adore. These either were proselytes who had been Gentiles, and now had embraced the Jewish law: or they were such among the Gentiles, who owned and served the one true God, as Cornelius did, (Acts, c. x.) but did not submit themselves to circumcision, and all the other Jewish rites and ceremonies. These could only enter into that part of the temple, called the court of the Gentiles. Wi.
*Lapide
. And there were certain Greeks , c. Some strangely suppose these to have been Jews who lived among the Gentiles, when S. John expressly says that they were Gentiles. These were partly proselytes, who had already embraced Judaism, or at least were thinking about it (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius), and partly Gentiles, who believed that there was One God, and who on seeing Him worshipped so reverently in the Temple, and by such multitudes at the Passover, resolved to do the same, being specially attracted by the fame of Christ's holiness and miracles, and being desirous of seeing Him. So S. Cyril, Leontius, and Theophylact. Just as the Eunuch of Queen Candace went up to Jerusalem to worship ( Act 8:27 ); and Gentile kings also reverenced the Temple of Jerusalem and sent offerings to it, as Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes (Ezr 1 . and 6.), Seleucus, and other kings of Asia (2 Mace. 3:3).* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 42, Article 1
[III, Q. 42, Art. 1]
Whether Christ Should Have Preached Not Only to the Jews, but Also to the Gentiles?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Isa. 49:6): "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the tribes of Israel [Vulg.: 'Jacob'] and to convert the dregs of Jacob [Vulg.: 'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth." But Christ gave light and salvation through His doctrine. Therefore it seems that it was "a small thing" that He preached to Jews alone, and not to the Gentiles.
Obj. 2: Further, as it is written (Matt. 7:29): "He was teaching them as one having power." Now the power of doctrine is made more manifest in the instruction of those who, like the Gentiles, have received no tidings whatever; hence the Apostle says (Rom. 15:20): "I have so preached the [Vulg.: 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." Therefore much rather should Christ have preached to the Gentiles than to the Jews.
Obj. 3: Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But Christ instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman (John 4) and the Chananaean woman (Matt. 15). Much more reason, therefore, was there for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." And (Rom. 10:15) it is written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore Christ should not have preached to the Gentiles.
_I answer that,_ It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): "I say that Christ . . . was minister of the circumcision," i.e. the apostle and preacher of the Jews, "for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."
Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is written Rom. 13:1: "Those things which are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'those that are, are ordained of God']." Now the right order demanded that the doctrine of Christ should be made known first to the Jews, who, by believing in and worshiping one God, were nearer to God, and that it should be transmitted through them to the Gentiles: just as in the heavenly hierarchy the Divine enlightenment comes to the lower angels through the higher. Hence on Matt. 15:24, "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of Israel," Jerome says: "He does not mean by this that He was not sent to the Gentiles, but that He was sent to the Jews first." And so we read (Isa. 66:19): "I will send of them that shall be saved," i.e. of the Jews, "to the Gentiles . . . and they shall declare My glory unto the Gentiles."
Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence on Matt. 10:5, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles." Jerome says: "It behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest they should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our Lord because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles and Samaritans."
Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written (Apoc. 2:26, 28): "He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power over the nations . . . as I also have received of My Father"; and that because He became "obedient unto the death of the cross, God hath exalted Him . . . that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." and that "every tongue should confess Him" (Phil. 2:8-11). Consequently He did not wish His doctrine to be preached to the Gentiles before His Passion: it was after His Passion that He said to His disciples (Matt. 28:19): "Going, teach ye all nations." For this reason it was that when, shortly before His Passion, certain Gentiles wished to see Jesus, He said: "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:20-25); and as Augustine says, commenting on this passage: "He called Himself the grain of wheat that must be mortified by the unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the faith of the nations."
Reply Obj. 1: Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them.
Reply Obj. 2: It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power to do something by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the Divine power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed on the teaching of His disciples such a power that they converted the Gentiles to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him.
Now the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy of His persuasion, and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being Himself above the Law when He said: "But I say to you" (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44); and, again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless manner of life.
Reply Obj. 3: Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at the outset make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the Jews, in order that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to the first-born people; so neither was it fitting for Him to neglect the Gentiles altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of salvation. For this reason certain individual Gentiles were admitted, on account of the excellence of their faith and devotedness. _______________________
SECOND
*Lapide
. The same came therefore to Philip (the Apostle), who was of Bethsaida , c. They went to Philip, in preference to the other Apostles, either because he was known to them, or was the first they met, or because in his voice and bearing he exhibited greater affability and candour, which attracted all men to him. For they did not venture as Gentiles to approach Jesus Himself, a person of such great holiness, and a Prophet, and moreover a Jew, say S. Cyril, Chrysostom, and Leontius. They request Philip therefore to mediate in their behalf.*Lapide
. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew (as the greater and elder Apostle), and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. Andrew had the greater authority with Jesus, as having been the first called, and as having brought to Him his brother Peter. Having consulted together, they mention the whole matter to Jesus before introducing the Gentiles: for they had heard Jesus say, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" ( Mat 10:5 ).*Lapide
. But Jesus answered them , c. Do not drive away the Gentiles from me, but bring them to me. What I said before was at the beginning of my preaching, which was intended for the Jews only; but now, when my preaching as well as my life is coming to an end, and the Jews reject my preaching, I will pass over to the Gentiles. For the hour is coming, when I shall be glorified, not only by the Jews, but also by the Gentiles, throughout the whole world; I shall be acknowledged, that is, as the Messiah and the Saviour, and worshipped and adored by means of your preaching in every place. Moreover, the glorification of Christ is the glorification of all Christians. For S. Augustine says ( Serm. clxxvi . de temp .) The Death of Christ hath quickened us; His Resurrection hath raised us up; His Ascension hath dedicated us; and ( Serm. clxxxiv.) the Lord Jesus Christ ascends, the Holy Spirit descends [ Both these, not S. Augustine ].*H Amen, amen, I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die,
Ver. 24. Unless the grain of wheat. The comparison is this, that as the seed must be changed, and corrupted in the ground, before it fructify, so the world would not be converted but by Christ's death. Wi. — By this grain of corn our Saviour means himself, who was to die by the infidelity of the Jews, and be multiplied by the faith of the Gentiles. S. Aug. tract. 51. in Joan.
*Lapide
. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat , c. Christ teaches us that His glorification would come to Him through the death of the Cross, lest the Apostles and the faithful should be offended at it. Hear S. Augustine ( in loc. ), "Jesus by this meant Himself. For He was the grain of wheat which had to die, and be multiplied; to die through the unbelief of the Jews, to be multiplied by the faith of all people." This means, that as a grain of wheat thrown into the ground does not germinate except it die, but if it die it germinates and brings forth much fruit; so, in like manner, I must needs die, that by the merits and through the example of my death, I may bring forth many eminent and striking fruits of virtue and faith: I mean the many thousands of Martyrs, Virgins, Doctors, and Confessors, all over the world in the present and future ages. This also comes to pass in the death of Martyrs, when one dies, and many spring up in his place, and embrace the faith of Christ. The Church reads this passage on the Feast of S. Lawrence, and other Martyrs. Tertullian truly says ( in fin. Apol .), "The Blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church," and adds, "Torture us, rack us, condemn us, crush us: your iniquity is the proof of our innocence." And again, "The more exquisite your cruelty, the more does it attract to our sect; we increase in number the oftener you mow us down." S. Gregory ( Dialog. lib. iii. cap. 39) gives a remarkable instance in S. Hermengild. He was killed by his father Leovigild, an Arian king, and thus won the king himself and his brother Recared, and the whole nation of the Visigoths, to the orthodox faith. "One, then," says S. Gregory, "died in that nation, that many might live; and while one grain fell to the ground in faith, to win the faith of souls, an abundant harvest sprang up." Anagogically. Bede says, "Jesus was sown of the seed of the Patriarchs, on the field of this world, that is, He was incarnate: He died Himself alone, He arose in company with many." Hear S. Bernard ( Serm. xv. in Cant .), "Let the grain die; let the harvest of the Gentiles spring up. It was needful that Christ should suffer, and rise from the dead, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name, not to Judea only, but to all nations; to the end that from that one Name of Christ thousands of thousands should be called Christians, and say 'Thy Name is as ointment poured forth.'" ( Song i. 3).* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 46, Article 2
[III, Q. 46, Art. 2]
Whether There Was Any Other Possible Way of Human Deliverance Besides the Passion of Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no other possible way of human deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (John 12:24): "Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Upon this St. Augustine (Tract. li) observes that "Christ called Himself the seed." Consequently, unless He suffered death, He would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our redemption.
Obj. 2: Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Matt. 26:42): "My Father, if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it, Thy will be done." But He spoke there of the chalice of the Passion. Therefore Christ's Passion could not pass away; hence Hilary says (Comm. 31 in Matth.): "Therefore the chalice cannot pass except He drink of it, because we cannot be restored except through His Passion."
Obj. 3: Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by the Passion in order that man might be delivered from sin. But Christ cannot let His justice pass; for it is written (2 Tim. 2:13): "If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself were He to deny His justice, since He is justice itself. It seems impossible, then, for man to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion.
Obj. 4: Further, there can be no falsehood underlying faith. But the Fathers of old believed that Christ would suffer. Consequently, it seems that it had to be that Christ should suffer.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We assert that the way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the Divine dignity; but let us also show that other possible means were not lacking on God's part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate."
_I answer that,_ A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from supposition. Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, because "no word shall be impossible with God" (Luke 1:37). Yet it was impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's Passion, it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion. And the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid down in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 13).
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's foreknowledge and predetermination, according to which it was resolved that the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless Christ suffered.
Reply Obj. 2: In the same way we must understand what is here objected to in the second instance: "If this chalice may not pass away but I must drink of it"--that is to say, because Thou hast so ordained it--hence He adds: "Thy will be done."
Reply Obj. 3: Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another--for instance, against another man, or against the State, or any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy: "To Thee only have I sinned" (Ps. 50:6), as if to say: "Thou canst pardon me without injustice."
Reply Obj. 4: Human faith, and even the Divine Scriptures upon which faith is based, are both based on the Divine foreknowledge and ordinance. And the same reason holds good of that necessity which comes of supposition, and of the necessity which arises of the Divine foreknowledge and will. _______________________
THIRD
*S Part 4, Ques 74, Article 3
[III, Q. 74, Art. 3]
Whether Wheaten Bread Is Required for the Matter of This Sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in John 6. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Obj. 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.
Obj. 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (John 12:24): "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone." Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), for the use of the sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.
Reply Obj. 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as Augustine says (Q. 83): "The flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species, yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary. _______________________
FOURTH
* Footnotes
-
*
Matthew
10:39
He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.
-
*
Matthew
16:25
For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.
-
*
Mark
8:35
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel shall save it.
-
*
Luke
9:34
And as he spoke these things, there came a cloud and overshadowed them. And they were afraid when they entered into the cloud.
-
*
Luke
17:33
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose it shall preserve it.
*Lapide
. He that loveth his life , c. He that so preferreth his life to my Faith and its profession, as rather to deny the Faith than lose his life, shall incur eternal death. But he who hateth his life, so as to prefer losing it to losing the Faith, will live in eternal happiness in heaven. Again, the same is true of those who prefer their own evil desires to my Law: and of those who hate their life by resisting its desires which are contrary to God's Law, and thus keep it unto life eternal. Such as Martyrs, Anchorites, "Religious," and all other holy people. Either meaning is suitable, and was intended by Christ. Both meanings are conjoined by SS. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. For Christ foresaw that the Apostles, and Christians in general, would after His death suffer persecution, and accordingly He here wished to forewarn and forearm them. Again, Christ wished to teach all Christians, that they should constantly resist all evil desires and strive against them. (See Gal 5:17 ; Mat 10:39 , Mat 16:25 ; Ecclus. 18:30. See notes on this last passage.) But the Circumcelliones misinterpreted this passage, for, as S. Augustine testifies ( in loc ), they used to kill themselves in order to obtain the eternal life here promised by Christ. For it is one thing to hate one's life, and another to make away with it, an act forbidden by every law. Lastly, hear S. Augustine ( in loc .), "He that loveth his life shall lose it. Which can be understood in two ways. He who loves will lose; i.e ., if thou lovest, thou wilt lose: if thou wishest to have life in Christ, fear not to die for Christ. Or, in the other sense, love not thy life, lest thou lose it, love it not in this life, lest thou lose it in life eternal. This latter meaning more accords with the mind of the Gospel." And a few sentences after, "A great and marvellous saying, that a man should so love his life as to lose it, and so hate it as not to lose it. If thou hast loved it ill, then dost thou hate it; if thou hast hated it rightly, then hast thou loved it. Happy they who hate their souls and keep them, that they lose them not by loving them." And then he concludes, "When therefore it comes to the point, that we must either do contrary to the commandment of God, or else depart this life, and a man is obliged to choose either the one or the other, when the persecutor threatens his death, let him rather choose to die through loving God, than to die through offending Him. Let him hate his life in this world, that he may keep it unto life eternal." Hear S. Chrysostom, "He loves his life in this world, who obeys its unseemly desires. He hates it, who yields not to its hurtful desires. He says 'hate' because as we cannot bear to hear the voice of those we hate, so should a soul resolutely turn away from one who wishes what is contrary to God." And Theophylact adds (by way of consolation, and as knowing how grievous it is to hate one's soul), " In this world ," indicating the shortness of the time, and speaking of the eternal reward. S. Chrysostom adds, "that Christ, when He saw that His disciples would be saddened at his death, raised up their thoughts to higher things, as if He said If ye will not bear my death manfully, no benefit will accrue to you unless ye die yourselves. These words of Christ are an axiom, and a summary of a Christian's life. It is the root and foundation of all virtues, which are deduced from it, as conclusions from their premises. He therefore who wishes to become specially learned and perfect in the school of Christ, should constantly ruminate on this saying, weigh it, impress it on his will and carry it out in act, try all his actions by it as a touchstone, adapt and conform himself to it. For thus will he become a pre-eminently true disciple and follower of Christ, and in return for this brief life which he counts but nought, will obtain the joys of life eternal.*H If any man minister to me, let him follow me: and where I am, there also shall my minister be. If any man minister to me, him will my Father honour.
Ver. 26. We must minister to Jesus by seeking not our own things, but the things of Christ; that is; we must follow him, we must walk in his footsteps, we must perform the corporal works of mercy, and every other good work, for his sake, till we come to put in practice the most perfect act of charity, the laying down of our lives for our brethren. Then will he crown us with this greatest of rewards, the happiness of reigning with him. And where I am, there shall my minister be. S. Aug. tract. 51. in Joan.
*Lapide
. If any man love Me, let him follow Me. "Let him imitate Me by death and mortification, and by good works," says S. Chrysostom, "walk in my ways, and not his own, and not seeking his own, but the things which are Jesus Christ's ( Phi 2:21 ); and whatever good he does, either in temporal or spiritual things, doing it for Him." And where I am, there shall my servant be . "Behold the fruit and the reward," S. Augustine proceeds; "He is loved freely, and the reward of His ministration is to be with Him, to be adopted by Him to whom he is united, in heaven, i.e. in the vision and possession of God, in happiness and joy eternal." So S. Chrysostom. See notes on Luk 22:7 . If any man serve Me, him will me Father honour, with heavenly honour, before the angels and the whole world. He says not, "I will honour him, for they had not yet attained a right knowledge of Him, but thought more of the Father," says S. Chrysostom.*H Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour.
Ver. 27. Now is my soul troubled. Christ permitted this fear and horror to come upon his human nature, as he did afterwards in the garden of Gethsemani. Father, save me from this hour; yet he presently adds, but for this cause I came unto this hour; that is, I came into this world for this end, that I might die on a cross for all mankind. In like manner, when he had said in the garden, let this cup pass from me, he presently joined these words: but not my will, but thine be done. Wi. — Lest the disciples, upon hearing our Saviour exhorting them willingly and courageously to suffer death, should think within themselves, that he could well exhort them to these things, being himself beyond the reach of human misery, he assures them in this place, that he himself is in agony, and yet does not refuse to die for them. S. Chrys. hom. lxvi. in Joan.
*Lapide
. Now is My soul troubled. Because He had mentioned His approaching death, He allowed the natural dread of it to be aroused in His mind (as is the case with ourselves), and so was troubled. "Father," He said, "save Me from this hour." Just as in the garden he prayed, "Let this cup pass from Me." (1.) S. Chrysostom gives the reason, "Having exhorted His disciples to follow Him even to death, for fear they should say that He could easily philosophise about death, He showed that He was in an agony, and yet that He did not refuse to die, to teach us to do the same, when dreading death and self-denial. (2.) S. Cyril says, He did it to show that He was not only God, but true man, subject to all our passions and sorrows. (3.) S. Augustine, and after him Bede, "that Christ by taking on Him our infirmities might heal and strengthen us. Thou tellest my soul to follow Thee. But I see that thy soul is troubled. What foundation shall I seek, if the Rock gives way? But I recognise thy compassion therein. For by being thus troubled by thy voluntary act of love, Thou comfortest the weak, lest they should perish through despair. Our Head took on Himself the feelings of His members." And again, "As He has raised us up to things which are highest, so does He feel sympathy for us in those which are lowest." And he brings in Christ as thus speaking "Thou hast heard my mighty voice addressed to thee. Thou hast heard in Me the voice of thine own weakness: I give thee strength that thou mayest run; I check not thy speed, but I take upon Myself thy fear, and make a way for thee to pass over." And what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour. Theophylact and Leon ius explain thus: "I know not what to do or say. Shall I say then, Father, save Me from this hour? Shall I shrink from death? By no means, I will master my agony, I will go willingly to meet my death." Others express it more simply and plainly, as expressing His natural dread of death, corrected at once by the exercise of His superior will. As in the Agony in the garden. For He immediately adds, Yet for this cause have I come to this hour. Though I naturally dread death, yet I do not wish this natural desire of Mine to be fulfilled. For I came into the world for the very purpose of drinking this cup of the Passion. So S. Augustine, Bede, Rupertus, and others.* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 54, Article 2
[III, Q. 54, Art. 2]
Whether Christ's Body Rose Glorified?
[*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order of the introduction to the question. But it is evident from the first sentence of the body of A. 3 (A. 2 in the aforesaid editions), that the order of the Leonine edition is correct.]
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to Matt. 13:43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.
Obj. 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He Himself says in Luke 24:39: "Handle, and see." Now Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled." Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified.
Obj. 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."
_I answer that,_ Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Q. 34, A. 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply Obj. 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
Reply Obj. 2: We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (Suppl., Q. 82, A. 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection."
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power." Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food. _______________________
THIRD
*H Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore came from heaven: I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.
Ver. 28. Father, glorify thy name, by my sufferings and death, as well as by many miracles that shall follow. A voice came from heaven, and so loud, that some there present compared it to thunder: and at the same time these words were heard: I have glorified it, thy name, and I will glorify it again, by a number of ensuing miracles at Christ's death, at his resurrection and ascension, as well as by all those miracles, which the apostles and disciples wrought afterwards. Wi.
*Lapide
. Glorify Me at this very instant; that both Gentiles and Jews may acknowledge that I have been sent by Thee to redeem man, and will therefore glorify Thee for thy goodness. So Theodore of Heraclæa. Then came there a voice , c. I have glorified It (1) By communicating to Him, as my only begotten Son, my majesty, glory, and Godhead from all eternity. As He said chap. xvii. 5. So S. Augustine and Bede. (2.) In creating the world, and all things therein by Him. So Rupertus. (3.) Most sensibly. By the voice from heaven at His Baptism, and by the miracles and mighty works which He wrought. And also by the voice at this time uttered from heaven. He glorified Him also by His death and resurrection, His ascension, His sending the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of the Apostles, and the miracles, which will lead all nations to acknowledge, worship, love and adore Him as the Son of God. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others.*Lapide
. The people therefore that stood by, and heard it (this trumpet voice of God the Father) said that it thundered. Because it was very loud and resonant. Or perhaps because it was not articulate, but like the confused sound of thunder. S. Chrysostom says, "The voice was clear and significant enough, but they being dull and carnal, it soon passed away, and they retained merely the sound of it." And further on, "They knew it was articulate, but did not take in its meaning." But the truer meaning, Rupertus, and after him Maldonatus, say is this, "That they all heard this articulate voice and understood its meaning, viz., that Jesus was the Son of God; but that on account of the loudness of the voice they could not persuade themselves it was really a voice, but that either it was thunder, and that they were mistaken in supposing they had heard an articulate voice as of a man, or that it was certainly the voice of an angel." They thought also that the Evangelist mentioned this, in order to show that it was not a low or indistinct voice, such as Christ only could hear, and that there were no other witnesses, but that it was so loud and so clear that they not only all heard it, but heard it so plainly that some thought it was thunder, some the voice of an angel, while none considered it to be the voice of a man. And this consequently proved that what they considered thunder was in truth the voice of God, for thunder is commonly spoken of as His voice. Symbolically. This thunder signified that Jesus was the Son of God, who thunders from heaven, and consequently that He Himself was God. For the thunder's voice refers us back to its source, and leads us to venerate Him, and announce Him to the Gentiles. Again, it signified that Jesus, even as man, not merely thundered Himself with His mouth and flashed forth from His heart, to move hard hearts to penitence and to warm cold hearts with love; but also that He caused the Apostles and His followers to thunder and lighten. In fact, He gave that name to James and John, calling them Sons of Thunder (Mar 3:17Mar 3:17 ). And S. Paul is called by S. Jerome (Epist. lxi.) "The trumpet of the Gospel, the roaring of our Lion, the thunder of the Gentiles," adding, "for as often as I read him, I seem not to hear words only, but thunder." Hear S. Chrysostom ( Hom. xxxii. in Rom .), "Thunder is not so terrible, as was his voice to the devils. For if they dreaded his garments, much more did they dread his voice. For it led them bound and captive, it purified the world, it cured diseases, it expelled vice, it brought in truth; it had Christ dwelling within. For He accompanied him everywhere, and just as were the Cherubim, so also was the voice of Paul. For as God sat in the midst of these heavenly Powers, so sat He on the tongue of S. Paul." And Nazianzen (Orat. xx.) says, "The words of S. Basil were as thunder, because his example shone as lightning." Hence the voice of Christ is compared to the voice of many waters ( Rev 1:15 ) and to the voice of a multitude ( Dan 10:6 ). Others said, an angel spake to Him. For this voice was more dignified than that of a man. It was therefore angelic, or rather divine. For an angel, assuming the Person of God the Father, had uttered it.*H Jesus answered and said: This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
Ver. 30. As the soul of Christ was troubled, not on his own account, but for the sake of the people; so this voice came from heaven, not for his sake, but for that of the people. What it announced was already known to him; the advantage and instruction of the Jews was its end, object, and motive. S. Aug. 52. tract. in Joan.
*Lapide
. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. In order that ye may believe in Me, and be saved. I need not this voice for my own sake, for I am the Word of the Father, whom the Father and the Holy Spirit glorify with increate and boundless glory. But ye need it, because some of you object, that I am not the Son of God, nor sent by God; others have doubts on the matter. But this voice of the Father proclaims the contrary of both these statements, so as to remove all doubt. So SS. Augustine, Bede, Rupertus, c.*H Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Ver. 31. Now is the judgment of the world: Their condemnation, says S. Chrys. for not believing. — The prince of this world, that is, the devil, shall be cast out from that great tyranny, which he had over mankind, before Christ's incarnation. Wi. — By these words Christ informs the Gentiles that wished to see him, that soon he would punish the incredulous Jews, and cast off their synagogue, for their malice and insatiable hatred against him; and that the prince of this world, that is, the worship of idols, should be destroyed, and all called to the true faith. Calmet.
*Lapide
. Now is the judgment of this world, c. Judgment here signifies condemnation, the condemnation of the Jews for condemning Me to death. So SS. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. But others understand it to mean judgment in favour of the innocent. It means, in this sense, the time is at hand for the deliverance of the world from the tyranny of Satan. For my death is at hand, by which this deliverance will be effected, and Satan will be cast out of the hearts of the faithful. Rupertus acutely observes, "Two worlds are here spoken of, one the enemy of God, the other reconciled to Him the one lost, the other saved." He founds this distinction on the absence or the presence of the article [but this does not appear in the Greek]. But what then is the judgment of this world, and the casting out of the prince of this world? Surely the coming Passion of Him who is speaking: for that is the judgment of this world, its salvation indeed, as separating from the reprobate the whole body of the elect from the beginning of the world to the hour of His Passion: and the casting out of the prince of this world, holding sway over the lovers of the world, is the reconciliation of the elect Gentiles. "Christ therefore here signifies (1) that He would by His death free the world (that is the Gentiles who would believe in Him) from sin and the devil; (2) that He would drive out the devil from the hearts of the faithful, and also from the temples, that the true God might be worshipped therein; (3) that He would deprive the devil of the power he had heretofore exercised in tempting men, and would also bestow all-powerful grace, by which, if they willed, they would be able to resist temptation; (4) Christ cast out many devils from the bodies of men, and consigned them to hell. So Prosper ( in Dem. Temp .); and see Luk 8:31Luk 8:31 . S. Augustine writes, "He foresaw that after His Passion and glorification many people throughout the whole world would believe on Him, out of whose hearts the devil is cast when they renounce him by their faith. He was also cast out of the hearts of righteous men of old. But it is said here that he will be cast out, because that which then took place in a very few cases, would hereafter take place in many and great multitudes. He is cast out, but yet ceases not to tempt. But it is one thing to rule within, and another to assail from without." S. Chrysostom in like manner says, "As if a man who assaults his debtors and casts them into prison, and with like madness throws another into prison, who owes him nothing at all, will have to pay the penalty for the wrongs he has done; so will the devil pay the penalty for the wrongs he has done us, by his bold, assaults against Christ." Just as He Himself says, Luk 11:21 . Christ, therefore, knowing that the Gentiles longed to see Him, was grieved that the whole world was overwhelmed with heathenism, and therefore wishes His death to be hastened, in order that He might obtain for them faith and grace from God, and might send His apostles to convert them to God. And in like manner S. Gregory greatly desired the conversion of the Angles. [This Cornelius tells at length]:* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 44, Article 1
[III, Q. 44, Art. 1]
Whether Those Miracles Were Fitting Which Christ Worked in Spiritual Substances?
Objection 1: It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which Christ worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances the holy angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "The treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by the rational, pious, and just spirit of life." But we read of no miracles worked by Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither should He have worked miracles in the demons.
Obj. 2: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons: since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to 1 Cor. 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." Therefore He should not have worked miracles in the demons.
Obj. 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God: hence it is written (Matt. 9:8) that "the multitudes seeing" that the man sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men." But the demons have no part in glorifying God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus. 15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not to speak" (Mk. 1:34; Luke 4:41) those things which reflected glory on Him. Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in the demons.
Obj. 4: Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was detrimental to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related (Mk. 9:24, 25) that a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly tearing" the man, "went out of him; and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead"; sometimes also to things: as when He sent the demons, at their own request, into the swine, which they cast headlong into the sea; wherefore the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him that He would depart from their coasts" (Matt. 8:31-34). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should have worked such like miracles.
_On the contrary,_ this was foretold (Zech. 13:2), where it is written: "I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth."
_I answer that,_ The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to rescue those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons; according to John 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should also deliver those who were obsessed by demons.
Reply Obj. 1: Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from the power of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the companionship of the angels, according to Col. 1:20: "Making peace through the blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth and the things that are in heaven." Therefore it was not fitting to show forth to men other miracles as regards the angels, except by angels appearing to men: as happened in His Nativity, His Resurrection, and His Ascension.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as far as there was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy angels, by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects of His power." First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after fasting they deemed Him not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Luke 4:3, "If Thou be the Son of God," etc., Ambrose says: "What means this way of addressing Him? save that, though He knew that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the flesh?" But afterwards, when he saw Him work miracles, he had a sort of conjectural suspicion that He was the Son of God. Hence on Mk. 1:24, "I know who Thou art, the Holy one of God," Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had no certain or firm knowledge of God's coming." Yet he knew that He was "the Christ promised in the Law," wherefore it is said (Luke 4:41) that "they knew that He was Christ." But it was rather from suspicion than from certainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede says on Luke 4:41: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated farther on, 'they knew that He was Christ.' For when the devil saw Him weakened by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of God. And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for persuading the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him not to be Christ or the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would be the loser by His death. For the Apostle says of this mystery" (1 Cor. 2:7, 8), "which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the princes of this world knew it,' for if they had known it they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."
Reply Obj. 3: The miracles which Christ worked in expelling demons were for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they might glorify Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise. First, to give us an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He restrained his speech, although he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to care about such things, although it may seem that what is said is true. For it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we have the Divine Scripture": Besides, it is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix falsehood with truth. Or, as Chrysostom [*Cyril of Alexandria, Comment. in Luc.] says: "It was not meet for them to usurp the prerogative of the apostolic office. Nor was it fitting that the mystery of Christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue" because "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" [*Cf. Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.]. Thirdly, because, as Bede says, "He did not wish the envy of the Jews to be aroused thereby" [*Bede, Expos. in Luc. iv, 41]. Hence "even the apostles are commanded to be silent about Him, lest, if His Divine majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion should be deferred."
Reply Obj. 4: Christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for the good of man, and principally as to the salvation of his soul. Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do man some harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of man's soul--namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on Matt. 8:32 that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as yielding to the demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the demons who attack men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons would not dare to hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly, that they would have treated those men more grievously than they treated the swine, unless they had been protected by God's providence."
And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He release him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are taught, as Bede says on Mk. 9:25, that "often, when after falling into sin we strive to return to God, we experience further and more grievous attacks from the old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us with a distaste for virtue, or that he may avenge the shame of having been cast out." For the man who was healed "became as dead," says Jerome, "because to those who are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God'" (Col. 3:3) _______________________
SECOND
*S Part 4, Ques 49, Article 2
[III, Q. 49, Art. 2]
Whether We Were Delivered from the Devil's Power Through Christ's Passion?
Objection 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from the power of the devil through Christ's Passion. For he has no power over others, who can do nothing to them without the sanction of another. But without the Divine permission the devil could never do hurt to any man, as is evident in the instance of Job (1, 2), where, by power received from God, the devil first injured him in his possessions, and afterwards in his body. In like manner it is stated (Matt. 8:31, 32) that the devils could not enter into the swine except with Christ's leave. Therefore the devil never had power over men: and hence we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion.
Obj. 2: Further, the devil exercises his power over men by tempting them and molesting their bodies. But even after the Passion he continues to do the same to men. Therefore we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion.
Obj. 3: Further, the might of Christ's Passion endures for ever, as, according to Heb. 10:14: "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." But deliverance from the devil's power is not found everywhere, since there are still idolaters in many regions of the world; nor will it endure for ever, because in the time of Antichrist he will be especially active in using his power to the hurt of men; because it is said of him (2 Thess. 2:9): "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity." Consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the cause of the human race being delivered from the power of the devil.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 12:31), when His Passion was drawing nigh: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself." Now He was lifted up from the earth by His Passion on the cross. Therefore by His Passion the devil was deprived of his power over man.
_I answer that,_ There are three things to be considered regarding the power which the devil exercised over men previous to Christ's Passion. The first is on man's own part, who by his sin deserved to be delivered over to the devil's power, and was overcome by his tempting. Another point is on God's part, whom man had offended by sinning, and who with justice left man under the devil's power. The third is on the devil's part, who out of his most wicked will hindered man from securing his salvation.
As to the first point, by Christ's Passion man was delivered from the devil's power, in so far as the Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins, as stated above (A. 1). As to the second, it must be said that Christ's Passion freed us from the devil's power, inasmuch as it reconciled us with God, as shall be shown later (A. 4). But as to the third, Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion he exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor."
Reply Obj. 1: The devil is said to have had such power over men not as though he were able to injure them without God's sanction, but because he was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had induced to give consent.
Reply Obj. 2: God so permitting it, the devil can still tempt men's souls and harass their bodies: yet there is a remedy provided for man through Christ's Passion, whereby he can safeguard himself against the enemy's assaults, so as not to be dragged down into the destruction of everlasting death. And all who resisted the devil previous to the Passion were enabled to do so through faith in the Passion, although it was not yet accomplished. Yet in one respect no one was able to escape the devil's hands, i.e. so as not to descend into hell. But after Christ's Passion, men can defend themselves from this by its power.
Reply Obj. 3: God permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons, and in times and places, according to the hidden motive of His judgments; still, there is always a remedy provided through Christ's Passion, for defending themselves against the wicked snares of the demons, even in Antichrist's time. But if any man neglect to make use of this remedy, it detracts nothing from the efficacy of Christ's Passion. _______________________
THIRD
*H And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.
Ver. 32. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth: that is, on the cross. See the same expression, Jo. iii. 14. and viii. 28. — I will draw all things, all nations, to myself by faith. Wi.
*Lapide
. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all Things unto Me. "Exalted by my resurrection and ascension," says S. Chrysostom. But other commentators refer it to the Cross, as S. John himself explains it. "Christ," says Maldonatus, "speaks of Himself as a soldier contending with the devil. For as a soldier has an advantage over his enemy if he is on higher ground, so would He, from His Cross, as from a very high and well-defended post, fight against the devil and overcome him. And therefore He called this kind of death an exaltation. When exalted He drew all to Himself, as an eagle carries his prey aloft with him." In like manner Mark, the Bishop of Arethusa in Syria, when lifted up on high, and besmeared with honey to attract the bees, laughed at his torturers, and said that they were grovelling on the earth, while he was lifted up above them. (See Theodoret, Hist. iii. 7, Soz. v. 10.) But Christ alludes to the lifting up of the brazen serpent ( see chap. iii. 14), and thus teaches us that the Cross is not to be dreaded, but desired, for it alone exalts. A1l things. (1) "Soul and body," say S. Augustine and Bede. (2) But Rupertus says: "Heaven and earth, men, angels, and devils. Because I will cause 'every knee to bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth'" ( Phi 2:10 ). (3) All men who will believe in Me, all nations of men. The Greek Fathers read πάντας . But Cornelius prefers the Vulgate " omnia " as more expressive, signifying all the choicest things of the world, all the spoils of the devil. The Arabic version has " each one ," the Syriac " all ." Draw. Will withdraw from the devil against his will, and not against their own will. For I will sweetly allure, and effectually draw them to Myself, and make them My brethren; nay more, My children, that as I am the Son of God by nature, so they may be the sons of God by adoption. The Greek word έλκύσω means, I will draw them by force, snatch them out of the power of the devil against his will, and strengthen men, moreover, to withstand their several temptations. See Mat 11:12 . Hear S. Leontius (Serm. viii. de Pass .), treating this whole passage with grace and tenderness. "O wondrous power of the Cross! O ineffable glory of the Passion, wherein is seen the tribunal of Christ, the judgment of the world and the power of the Crucified! For Thou didst draw, O Lord, all things unto Thee. And when Thou didst stretch forth Thine hands all the day to a disobedient and gainsaying people, the whole world felt the force of Thine acknowledged Majesty. Thou didst draw all things to thyself, O Lord, when in execration of the sin of the Jews all the elements pronounced one and the same sentence, when the luminaries of heaven were obscured, and night was turned into day, the earth also was shaken with unwonted quakings, and the whole creation refused its aid to the service of the wicked." He afterwards follows up the subject, and urges it still more forcibly. "Thou hast drawn all things to Thee, O Lord. When the veil of the temple was rent, and the holy of holies withdrawn from the unworthy priesthood, in order that the figure might be changed into Truth, prophecy into manifestation, and the Law into the Gospel. Thou didst draw all things to Thee, in order that that which was kept hid in the Jewish temple, by shadows and outward signs, the devotion of all nations might everywhere set forth in its full sacramental force before the eyes of all. For now there is a more illustrious order of Levites, a higher dignity of elders, and a more sacred unction of priests. Because thy Cross is the Fount of all blessings, the Source of all graces, and by it believers obtain strength out of weakness, glory out of shame, and life out of death." Moreover, Christ, when exalted on the Cross, between heaven and earth, drew all things to Himself. (1) Because He reconciled heaven and earth, Angels to the Gentiles, Gentiles to Jews, and God to men. For He is our peace, c., Eph 2:14 . (2) Because He drew all nations of the world to the faith and love of Himself. He drew them from the earth to the Cross; to penitence, that is, to continual mortification and martyrdom; and from the Cross to heaven. He drew them by the merits and price of His Blood; by His example, and by His Blood. For if Christ, of His own accord, died for us on the Cross, who would not love Him in return? Who would not say with S. Ignatius among the lions, "My love is crucified?" See Zec 13:6 on the words, "I was wounded in the house of my friends." (3) Christ on the Cross drew all things to Himself, i.e . the Creator and His creatures. For God by this sacrifice was propitiated towards men, the sun and the heavens were astonished, and as though bewailing the death of their Creator, withdrew their rays from the earth, the air was involved in the thickest darkness, the whole earth, convulsed and shaken, trembled from its very centre; the rocks were rent, and the graves were opened, that both the dead as well as the living might bewail the death of Christ. All creatures therefore looked up towards Christ crucified, as if in amazement, and as offering themselves to fight in His behalf against His murderers and to scatter them abroad. The Origenists wrongly inferred from this passage, that Christ brought the lost out of hell, and saved them. But as S. Gregory explains ( Epist. lib. vi. 15), Christ drew all, that is, the elect. "For a man cannot be drawn to God after death who has separated himself from God by his evil life." Symbolically. S. Bernard ( Serm. xxi. in Cant .) applies Christ's words to himself, and all "Religious." For they, by contempt of earthly and love of heavenly things, are lifted up from the earth, and therefore draw all things to them. For all things, whether adverse or prosperous, work together for their good: and they themselves possess a source of wealth by trampling it as it were under foot. "For to a faithful man the whole word is full of riches."* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 46, Article 4
[III, Q. 46, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Ought to Have Suffered on the Cross?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on the cross. For the truth ought to conform to the figure. But in all the sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured Christ the beasts were slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by fire. Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have suffered on a cross, but rather by the sword or by fire.
Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ ought not to assume "dishonoring afflictions." But death on a cross was most dishonoring and ignominious; hence it is written (Wis. 2:20): "Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have undergone the death of the cross.
Obj. 3: Further, it was said of Christ (Matt. 21:9): "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." But death upon the cross was a death of malediction, as we read Deut. 21:23: "He is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to be crucified.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
_I answer that,_ It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death of the cross.
First of all, as an example of virtue. For Augustine thus writes (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 25): "God's Wisdom became man to give us an example in righteousness of living. But it is part of righteous living not to stand in fear of things which ought not to be feared. Now there are some men who, although they do not fear death in itself, are yet troubled over the manner of their death. In order, then, that no kind of death should trouble an upright man, the cross of this Man had to be set before him, because, among all kinds of death, none was more execrable, more fear-inspiring, than this."
Secondly, because this kind of death was especially suitable in order to atone for the sin of our first parent, which was the plucking of the apple from the forbidden tree against God's command. And so, to atone for that sin, it was fitting that Christ should suffer by being fastened to a tree, as if restoring what Adam had purloined; according to Ps. 68:5: "Then did I pay that which I took not away." Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion [*Cf. Serm. ci De Tempore]: "Adam despised the command, plucking the apple from the tree: but all that Adam lost, Christ found upon the cross."
The third reason is because, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (De Cruce et Latrone i, ii): "He suffered upon a high rood and not under a roof, in order that the nature of the air might be purified: and the earth felt a like benefit, for it was cleansed by the flowing of the blood from His side." And on John 3:14: "The Son of man must be lifted up," Theophylact says: "When you hear that He was lifted up, understand His hanging on high, that He might sanctify the air who had sanctified the earth by walking upon it."
The fourth reason is, because, by dying on it, He prepares for us an ascent into heaven, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says. Hence it is that He says (John 12:32): "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to Myself."
The fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation of the entire world. Hence Gregory of Nyssa observes (In Christ. Resurr., Orat. i) that "the shape of the cross extending out into four extremes from their central point of contact denotes the power and the providence diffused everywhere of Him who hung upon it." Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A. III, ad 2] also says that upon the cross "He dies with outstretched hands in order to draw with one hand the people of old, and with the other those who spring from the Gentiles."
The sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this class of death. Hence Augustine in his book on the grace of the Old and New Testament (Ep. cxl) says: "Not without purpose did He choose this class of death, that He might be a teacher of that breadth, and height, and length, and depth," of which the Apostle speaks (Eph. 3:18): "For breadth is in the beam, which is fixed transversely above; this appertains to good works, since the hands are stretched out upon it. Length is the tree's extent from the beam to the ground; and there it is planted--that is, it stands and abides--which is the note of longanimity. Height is in that portion of the tree which remains over from the transverse beam upwards to the top, and this is at the head of the Crucified, because He is the supreme desire of souls of good hope. But that part of the tree which is hidden from view to hold it fixed, and from which the entire rood springs, denotes the depth of gratuitous grace." And, as Augustine says (Tract. cxix in Joan.): "The tree upon which were fixed the members of Him dying was even the chair of the Master teaching."
The seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very many figures. For, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (Serm. ci De Tempore), an ark of wood preserved the human race from the waters of the Deluge; at the exodus of God's people from Egypt, Moses with a rod divided the sea, overthrew Pharaoh and saved the people of God. the same Moses dipped his rod into the water, changing it from bitter to sweet; at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary spring gushed forth from a spiritual rock; likewise, in order to overcome Amalec, Moses stretched forth his arms with rod in hand; lastly, God's law is entrusted to the wooden Ark of the Covenant; all of which are like steps by which we mount to the wood of the cross.
Reply Obj. 1: The altar of holocausts, upon which the sacrifices of animals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is set forth Ex. 27; and in this respect the truth answers to the figure; but "it is not necessary for it to be likened in every respect, otherwise it would not be a likeness," but the reality, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii). But, in particular, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says: "His head is not cut off, as was done to John; nor was He sawn in twain, like Isaias, in order that His entire and indivisible body might obey death, and that there might be no excuse for them who want to divide the Church." While, instead of material fire, there was the spiritual fire of charity in Christ's holocaust.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which are allied with defects of knowledge, or of grace, or even of virtue, but not those injuries inflicted from without--nay, more, as is written Heb. 12:2: "He endured the cross, despising the shame."
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed, and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin. "But Christ's flesh was mortal, 'having the resemblance of the flesh of sin'"; and hence Moses calls it "accursed," just as the Apostle calls it "sin," saying (2 Cor. 5:21): "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin"--namely, because of the penalty of sin. "Nor is there greater ignominy on that account, because he said: 'He is accursed of God.'" For, "unless God had hated sin, He would never have sent His Son to take upon Himself our death, and to destroy it. Acknowledge, then, that it was for us He took the curse upon Himself, whom you confess to have died for us." Hence it is written (Gal. 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." _______________________
FIFTH
*Lapide
. But this He said, c. The death of the Cross. These ar the words of S. John inserted parenthetically.* Footnotes
-
*
Psalms
109:4
The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.
-
*
Psalms
116:2
For his mercy is confirmed upon us: and the truth of the Lord remaineth for ever.
-
*
Isaias
40:8
The grass is withered, and the flower is fallen: but the word of our Lord endureth for ever.
-
*
Ezechiel
37:25
And they shall dwell in the land which I gave to my servant Jacob, wherein your fathers dwelt, and they shall dwell in it, they and their children, and their children's children, for ever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever.
*H The multitude answered him: We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever. And how sayest thou: The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?
Ver. 34. How sayest thou the Son of man must be lifted up? By these words of the people, Christ, in this discourse must have called himself the Son of man, though it is not here mentioned by the evangelist. The people also tell him, they had heard that their Messias was to abide for ever: which was true as to his spiritual kingdom of grace, not as to such a glorious temporal kingdom, as they imagined. Wi.
*Lapide
. The people answered Him, We have heard out of the Law, that Christ abideth ever, and how sayest Thou, the Son of Man must be lifted up? The Jews understood that Christ spake of His death on the Cross. How then does He say that He would die, when the Law says that He would not die? S. Augustine says, "They understood Him to mean the very thing which they were contemplating. It was not inspired wisdom, but the sting of their conscience which disclosed to them the meaning of these obscure words." Out of the Law. By the Law is meant the whole of the Old Testament. They understood this from the following passages, Micah, v. 2; Psa 110:14 , Psa 90:30 , Psa 90:38 , Psa 72:5 ; Isa 9:7 , Isa 40:8 ; Eze 37:27 ; Dan 9:26 . But these passages speak of the kingdom of Christ after His ascension. This kingdom will be eternal. But Christ elsewhere foretold His death. See Isa 53:3 ; Psa 22:12 , Psa 22:17 ; Dan 9:26 ; Jer 11:19 . Who is this Son of Man? Meaning thereby, "If Thou art that Son of Man, as Thou art wont to call Thyself, how dost Thou wish to be regarded as the Christ? For Christ according to the Scriptures, as has just been said, is eternal, and cannot die. Whereas Thou sayest, on the contrary, that the Son of Man must die and be raised up on the Cross. If there be any other Son of Man, tell us plainly who he is.". So Toletus and Jansen. Maldonatus somewhat differently; he thinks that the Jews insulted Christ as if they had refuted His claims, and taunted Him, as a conqueror would taunt a king whom he had taken captive. As the Jews afterwards said (tauntingly) to Him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"*H Jesus therefore said to them: Yet a little while, the light is among you. Walk whilst you have the light, and the darkness overtake you not. And he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither be goeth.
Ver. 35. Yet a little while, [2] that is, for a very few days, I, who am the light of the world, am with you. Wi. — How much do the Jews now do, and yet they know not what they do: but like men that are walking in the dark, they think they are in the right way, when alas! they are quite the contrary. S. Chrys. hom. lxvi. in Joan.
*Lapide
. Jesus therefore said unto them, Yet a little while is the Light with you , c. "Christ would not answer their objections directly, as knowing that they deserved not a reply" says S. Cyril. He therefore answers indirectly, that they should use Him as a light; for that that light would be soon extinguished by death, when they would have to seek for Him in vain. But if they desired to use that light they would be enlightened by it, so as to find an answer to their objection, and know other things which were necessary for their salvation. The Latin commentators take the word " modicum " as referring to the light, thus, " a little light ." Ye have but little light in thinking that Christ will abide for ever. But ye know not that He will also die and rise again. Walk therefore while ye have the light. Go on to investigate the truth. Ye will then learn how Christ will die, and yet rise again, and abide for ever. (So S. Augustine, S. Bernard, Serm. xlix. in Song Lyra, and others). But the word " modicum " does not refer to the light, but to the word "time" as is plain in the Greek. He calls Himself the light of the world, for the reasons which are mentioned in notes to chap. i., and also 1Jn 1:5 . (1.) S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think that Christ here likened Himself to the Light, or Sun, because as the light of the sun is not extinguished by night, but is only hid for awhile, and rises again in the morning, and shines throughout the day, so He would die and rise again, and reign for ever, which was the very thing the Jews were inquiring about. (2.) It may be explained more clearly and to the point in this way, 1, Christ, the Light of the world, enlightening it with the doctrine and knowledge of God, of salvation and of things eternal, shall be but a short time (only three days) with you in the body. And, therefore, if ye are wise, as long as you have Me with you, embrace and follow this light, believe in Me, hearken unto Me, question Me, I will resolve all your doubts, especially how Christ will die, and yet abide for ever. But if ye do it not now, the light will shortly be taken from you. I shall soon die, and then the darkness of error will overwhelm you. For though I shall leave the Apostles after Me, to carry on the light of the Gospel which I brought: yet ye will not value them, and will persecute them, and then ye will in vain seek for Me, who am the very source of light. Just as He spake to the same Jews, Joh 7:33 . Christ calls Himself the Light. Wherefore S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Rupertus less appropriately understand by the light, the life of each faithful Christian, which is as it were to each one his own day. Believe in Me while the light of life lasts, for after it comes the darkness of death, when ye will not be able to believe, and do what is right. Symbolically. Leontius by darkness understands sins; Rupertus, the sufferings of the lost in outer darkness.*Lapide
. While ye have the light, walk as children of the light. Believe in Me, who am the light of the world; believe that I am the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world; believe in Me and my Gospel (so S. Cyril and Theophylact), that ye may be my children, and consequently the children of grace, charity, virtue, and sanctity in this life, and the children of the Resurrection, of happiness, and glory in the next life (see notes on 1Jn 1:5 , Joh 1:4 . , Eph 5:8 ). Tropologically. When thou feelest the enlightenment, the emotions, the breath of the Holy Spirit, act on them at once, for they come and go like lightning. As S. Francis, when he heard the voice of God, stopped short even on a journey, that he might listen to it, and at once put it into practice. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide Himself from them. Because He knew that they wished to take Him before the time appointed of the Father. So S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others. He hid Himself, probably at night, for by day He taught in the temple, and at night He withdrew to Mount Olivet, and thence to Bethany (see Luk 21:37 ). "He withdrew Himself not," says S. Augustine and Bede, "from those who began to believe in Him and to love Him. Not from those who came out with palm branches and praises to meet Him. But from those who saw Him indeed, but with an evil eye; because in truth they saw Him not, but in their blindness stumbled at that stone of offence." Symbolically. Rupertus says, "He hid Himself from them not in place but in grace; because He left them in their unbelief, He blinded and hardened them."* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 108, Article 1
[I-II, Q. 108, Art. 1]
Whether the New Law Ought to Prescribe or Prohibit Any External Acts?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law should not prescribe or prohibit any external acts. For the New Law is the Gospel of the kingdom, according to Matt. 24:14: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world." But the kingdom of God consists not in exterior, but only in interior acts, according to Luke 17:21: "The kingdom of God is within you"; and Rom. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Therefore the New Law should not prescribe or forbid any external acts.
Obj. 2: Further, the New Law is "the law of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:2). But "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17). Now there is no liberty when man is bound to do or avoid certain external acts. Therefore the New Law does not prescribe or forbid any external acts.
Obj. 3: Further, all external acts are understood as referable to the hand, just as interior acts belong to the mind. But this is assigned as the difference between the New and Old Laws that the "Old Law restrains the hand, whereas the New Law curbs the will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]. Therefore the New Law should not contain prohibitions and commands about exterior deeds, but only about interior acts.
_On the contrary,_ Through the New Law, men are made "children of light": wherefore it is written (John 12:36): "Believe in the light that you may be the children of light." Now it is becoming that children of the light should do deeds of light and cast aside deeds of darkness, according to Eph. 5:8: "You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk . . . as children of the light." Therefore the New Law had to forbid certain external acts and prescribe others.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 106, AA. 1, 2), the New Law consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love. Now men become receivers of this grace through God's Son made man, Whose humanity grace filled first, and thence flowed forth to us. Hence it is written (John 1:14): "The Word was made flesh," and afterwards: "full of grace and truth"; and further on: "Of His fulness we all have received, and grace for grace." Hence it is added that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Consequently it was becoming that the grace which flows from the incarnate Word should be given to us by means of certain external sensible objects; and that from this inward grace, whereby the flesh is subjected to the Spirit, certain external works should ensue.
Accordingly external acts may have a twofold connection with grace. In the first place, as leading in some way to grace. Such are the sacramental acts which are instituted in the New Law, e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist, and the like.
In the second place there are those external acts which ensue from the promptings of grace: and herein we must observe a difference. For there are some which are necessarily in keeping with, or in opposition to inward grace consisting in faith that worketh through love. Such external works are prescribed or forbidden in the New Law; thus confession of faith is prescribed, and denial of faith is forbidden; for it is written (Matt. 10:32, 33) "(Every one) that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father . . . But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father." On the other hand, there are works which are not necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by virtue of its primitive institution; but have been left by the Lawgiver, i.e. Christ, to the discretion of each individual. And so to each one it is free to decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is called the "law of liberty" [*Cf. Reply Obj. 2]: since the Old Law decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
Reply Obj. 1: The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts: but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom. On the other hand, those things that are indifferent as regards the aforesaid, for instance, to eat of this or that food, are not part of the kingdom of God; wherefore the Apostle says before the words quoted: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink."
Reply Obj. 2: According to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), what is "free is cause of itself." Therefore he acts freely, who acts of his own accord. Now man does of his own accord that which he does from a habit that is suitable to his nature: since a habit inclines one as a second nature. If, however, a habit be in opposition to nature, man would not act according to his nature, but according to some corruption affecting that nature. Since then the grace of the Holy Ghost is like an interior habit bestowed on us and inclining us to act aright, it makes us do freely those things that are becoming to grace, and shun what is opposed to it.
Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects. First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain things, except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation, and come under the prescription or prohibition of the law. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through the promptings of grace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect liberty" (James 1:25).
Reply Obj. 3: The New Law, by restraining the mind from inordinate movements, must needs also restrain the hand from inordinate acts, which ensue from inward movements. ________________________
SECOND
*Lapide
. But though He had done so many ( τοσαυ̃τα , so great ) miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think that He wrought many miracles at this special time to lead the Jews to believe in Him, which S. John omitted for the sake of brevity. But others consider, more correctly, that S. John spoke of the many miracles Christ had wrought during the whole course of His ministry. As if Christ said, I have proved by so many miracles that I am the Messiah, why have ye not believed in Me? Ye cannot expect more. I am about to die: believe on Me at once, before I go hence. The reason why so few believed on Jesus, and the many did not was partly their animal life, by which they were tied down to earthly desires, and did not understand the heavenly blessings and that contempt for worldly things which Christ taught: and partly their fear of the Scribes and Chief Priests, whom they knew to be opposed to Christ, for the people follow the belief of those above them: and, partly the poverty, lowliness, and humility of Christ, which they themselves despised. For they hoped, and even now hope, that their Messiah would come with great pomp and wealth, as a second Solomon.* Footnotes
-
*
Isaias
53:1
Who a hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
-
*
Romans
10:16
But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report?
*Lapide
. That the saying of Esaias , c. The word "that" does not signify the end and purpose intended by God, but simply the result. The fulfilment of the prophecy resulted from the unbelief of the Jews. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. The passage quoted is Isa 53:1 , on which see a full comment. Our report. Our hearing, the Hebrew word scemaa, hearing, being put for that which was heard by an ordinary Hebraism. The arm of the Lord. That is Christ. (1.) So called as being "of one Substance with the Father," as the arm is of the same substance as the body. (2.) Because Christ, as God, is the "arm" of the Father, His virtue and strength, whereby He works all things mightily. (3.) Because as man He performed, in the flesh, the mighty and powerful works of God. (So S. Augustine, Maldonatus, and others, on this passage; and S. Jerome on Is. liii. and S. Athanasius, " De communi essentia Patris et Filii et S . Sancti opus dubium .") But it may be more simply understood of the Divine power which manifested itself in Christ's miracles. The meaning being, How few Jews recognised the power of God, working as it did in Christ's Person so many and great miracles. So Jansenius and Maldonatus.*H Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again:
Ver. 39. They could not believe, [3] that is, they would not, says S. Aug. or it could not be, considering their wilful obstinate blindness. Wi. — But where then is the sin, if they could not believe? They could not believe, because they would not. For as it is the glory of the will of God, that it cannot be averse to its own glory, so it is the fault of the will of man, that it cannot believe. S. Aug. tract. 53. in Joan. They could not believe. Since the prophet has foretold it, and he cannot but say the truth, it is impossible that they should now believe. Not but they had it in their power to believe; and had they believed, the prophet would never have foretold the contrary. S. Chrys. hom. lxvii. in Joan.
*Lapide
. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again , c. The words "therefore" and "because" signify not the cause of their unbelief, as Calvin supposes, but marking the necessary consequence. It could not but be so, because it had been foretold, and Scripture cannot lie. But God foretold it, because He foresaw that through their freedom of will, their obstinacy and malice, they would not believe in Christ. God therefore saw that they would not believe, because they, of their own free will, would not do so. But they did not refuse to believe, because God foresaw that they would not believe. For their unbelief was prior to God's foreseeing. God foresees the future, because it will surely come to pass. For God cannot foresee anything, unless it is presupposed that it will really take place. For the object which is seen is prior to the act of seeing it. For nothing can be seen but that which either now is, or hereafter will be. So S. Chrysostom, Jansenius, Maldonatus, and others. But S. Augustine, and after him Toletus, explain it thus: the Jews could not believe in Christ, because they were hardened and blinded, as Isaiah foretold. But then the words "could not" do not signify absolute necessity, but either a moral, that is a great, difficulty, or else a conditional difficulty. That is to say, the Jews could not believe in Christ, supposing they continued to hold fast to their sins, darkness, and ignorance; and therefore blinded and hardened themselves by their own wickedness. For otherwise, though they were blinded and hardened, yet as having free will, and sufficient grace to enable them, they could (speaking abstractedly) give up their hardness of heart and turn to God. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts. Christ quotes Isa 6:9-10 . Having fully explained this passage before, I will here briefly repeat what I there said. Observe then (1) that properly speaking the intellect is said to be blinded, but the affections and will to be hardened; (2) that the direct and proper cause of a man's blindness and hardening, is his own free will and wickedness. See Wisdom 2: 21. The Arabic and Syriac versions understand it in this way, "their eyes are blinded, and their heart is hardened." But yet God is said indirectly and in a less strict sense ( improprie ) to harden a man, because He gradually withdraws from Him the light of truth and grace, and allows opportunities of error and sin to be presented to him by the world, the flesh, and the devil, in punishment for his former sins. Moreover, in Isaiah we read "blind thou the heart of this people," these being the words of God to Isaiah. But it comes to the same meaning. For "blind thou," is the same as "foretell that a man will, indirectly, be blinded by Me." "He blinded" is then the same as " He will blind." The past is put for the future, to signify the certainty of the thing, that it will as surely come to pass as though it had already happened; that the Jews will be as surely blinded, as though they had been blinded already.* Footnotes
-
*
Isaias
6:9
And he said: Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not.
-
*
Matthew
13:14
And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.
-
*
Mark
4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
-
*
Luke
8:10
To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see and hearing may not understand.
-
*
Acts
28:26
Saying: Go to this people and say to them: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive.
-
*
Romans
11:8
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, until this present day.
*H He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart and be converted: and I should heal them.
Ver. 40. He hath blinded their eyes, &c. See Matt. xiii. 14. Wi. — God blinded the Jews, not by filling them with malice, but by refusing them his graces, of which they had made themselves unworthy, and which they before abused and despised. It was their perverse will, their pride, presumption, and obstinacy, that brought on them this judgment. S. Aug.
*Lapide
. These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him. The glory of Christ the Incarnate Son of God, who is spoken of in what preceded, and what follows. So SS. Augustine, Cyril, and all the Fathers, as against the Arians. It is therefore quite clear that Christ the Son of God is "of one substance " with the Father, having the same substance, majesty, and glory with Him. For the Jews deny not that these words and that Divine glory pertain to God the Father, nor can there be any doubt on the matter. But here it is said that the same glory belongs to the Son. And it is plain that the same is the glory of the Holy Ghost ( Act 28:25 ). And therefore when the Holy Trinity thus appeared to Isaiah, the Seraphim thrice exclaimed, Holy, Holy, Holy, c. This glory then which Isaiah saw, was that glorious vision in which the Essential Nature of the Holy Trinity and the Three Persons severally were represented in some ineffable manner by some outward symbol addressed to the imagination. But yet it was a kind of human appearance; for God appeared to Isaiah as a king seated on a lofty throne, and the prophet describes His countenance and His feet. And this appearance was most glorious, bright, and majestic. And accordingly, S. John terms it "glory." Therefore Ribera, Maldonatus, Toletus, and others say that Isaiah in that vision most clearly discerned (as far as man can discern in this mortal state) the Three Persons in Unity of Essence. And this too both from the words of the Seraphim, as also from that most exalted revelation which was made to him. And therefore he says, "When he saw His glory," when there was shown to him by revelation the Person of the Son as co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost. ( See more on Is . vi. z).*Lapide
. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on Him , c. By the chief rulers are not meant the chief priests and the magistrates, for they shortly afterwards took Jesus and put Him to death. But the chief persons, those who were pre-eminent for their wisdom, their authority, and their means, both among the priests and the common people. S. Rupertus. They therefore were convinced by the truth of Christ's doctrine, by His holiness and miracles, but yet did not dare to confess Him openly, for the reason mentioned above, Joh 9:22 .*H For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.
Ver. 43. For they loved the glory of men. This was one of the chief obstacles of their belief: yet many even of the chief of them believed in him; but durst not own it for fear of being disgraced, and turned out of their synagogues. Do not human considerations, and temporal advantages, hinder men from seeking out, and embracing the truth?
*Lapide
. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. "Glory" may here be taken in an active sense. They loved to give glory to men to the Jews, e.g ., and the Pharisees by saying that they were wise and sound teachers of the Law, rather than to Jesus Christ, by acknowledging Him to be the Messiah. Secondly, in the passive sense (and this is the best meaning), they preferred to be glorified by men rather than by God, to hear the Pharisees say, "Ye are the true Israelites, who abide in the faith of your fathers, and prefer Moses to this innovator Jesus, and the ancient religion of the Israelites to the novelties of this sect of Christians." So Augustine, Cyril, Bede, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others. They therefore had the faith of Christ, but not charity. For if they had had it they would have loved the glory of Gad, rather than that of men, and would have professed with their lips the faith of Christ which they held in their heart. See Rom 10:10 . Many such are found at the present time in England, Germany, and Poland, who cherish in their minds faith and piety, but who dare not profess them outwardly, for fear of incurring the derision and scoffs of worldlings or heretics. Against these Christ thunders forth, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of my words," c. (Luk 9:26 .) The Gloss says wisely (quoting S. Augustine in loc. ) The Cross is marked on the forehead, which is the seat of shame, to keep us from blushing at the Name of Christ, and seeking the praise of men rather than the praise of God."* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 132, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 132, Art. 3]
Whether Vainglory Is a Mortal Sin?
Objection 1: It seems that vainglory is a mortal sin. For nothing precludes the eternal reward except a mortal sin. Now vainglory precludes the eternal reward: for it is written (Matt. 6:1): "Take heed, that you do not give justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father Who is in heaven." Therefore vainglory is a mortal sin.
Obj. 2: Further, whoever appropriates to himself that which is proper to God, sins mortally. Now by desiring vainglory, a man appropriates to himself that which is proper to God. For it is written (Isa. 42:8): "I will not give My glory to another," and (1 Tim. 1:17): "To . . . the only God be honor and glory." Therefore vainglory is a mortal sin.
Obj. 3: Further, apparently a sin is mortal if it be most dangerous and harmful. Now vainglory is a sin of this kind, because a gloss of Augustine on 1 Thess. 2:4, "God, Who proveth our hearts," says: "Unless a man war against the love of human glory he does not perceive its baneful power, for though it be easy for anyone not to desire praise as long as one does not get it, it is difficult not to take pleasure in it, when it is given." Chrysostom also says (Hom. xix in Matth.) that "vainglory enters secretly, and robs us insensibly of all our inward possessions." Therefore vainglory is a mortal sin.
_On the contrary,_ Chrysostom says [*Hom. xiii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] that "while other vices find their abode in the servants of the devil, vainglory finds a place even in the servants of Christ." Yet in the latter there is no mortal sin. Therefore vainglory is not a mortal sin.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 24, A. 12; Q. 110, A. 4; Q. 112, A. 2), a sin is mortal through being contrary to charity. Now the sin of vainglory, considered in itself, does not seem to be contrary to charity as regards the love of one's neighbor: yet as regards the love of God it may be contrary to charity in two ways. In one way, by reason of the matter about which one glories: for instance when one glories in something false that is opposed to the reverence we owe God, according to Ezech. 28:2, "Thy heart is lifted up, and Thou hast said: I am God," and 1 Cor. 4:7, "What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" Or again when a man prefers to God the temporal good in which he glories: for this is forbidden (Jer. 9:23, 24): "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the strong man glory in his strength, and let not the rich man glory in his riches. But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me." Or again when a man prefers the testimony of man to God's; thus it is written in reproval of certain people (John 12:43): "For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God."
In another way vainglory may be contrary to charity, on the part of the one who glories, in that he refers his intention to glory as his last end: so that he directs even virtuous deeds thereto, and, in order to obtain it, forbears not from doing even that which is against God. In this way it is a mortal sin. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 14) that "this vice," namely the love of human praise, "is so hostile to a godly faith, if the heart desires glory more than it fears or loves God, that our Lord said (John 5:44): How can you believe, who receive glory one from another, and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?"
If, however, the love of human glory, though it be vain, be not inconsistent with charity, neither as regards the matter gloried in, nor as to the intention of him that seeks glory, it is not a mortal but a venial sin.
Reply Obj. 1: No man, by sinning, merits eternal life: wherefore a virtuous deed loses its power to merit eternal life, if it be done for the sake of vainglory, even though that vainglory be not a mortal sin. On the other hand when a man loses the eternal reward simply through vainglory, and not merely in respect of one act, vainglory is a mortal sin.
Reply Obj. 2: Not every man that is desirous of vainglory, desires the excellence which belongs to God alone. For the glory due to God alone differs from the glory due to a virtuous or rich man.
Reply Obj. 3: Vainglory is stated to be a dangerous sin, not only on account of its gravity, but also because it is a disposition to grave sins, in so far as it renders man presumptuous and too self-confident: and so it gradually disposes a man to lose his inward goods. _______________________
FOURTH
*Lapide
. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me (" only " as adds the Arabic version) but (also) on Him that sent Me. It is uncertain whether Jesus said these words at the same time as those which precede them (ver. 35), as Maldonatus thinks, i.e ., before he hid Himself and withdrew (as I said, ver. 36), being there mentioned by anticipation, when in the regular order it should be placed at the end of the chapter; or at another time, as Theophylact supposes. It is in fact a question to be solved. For Christ in these last three days of His life, came back in the morning to the Temple. But when He saw that some believed not, and that others believed but did not dare to profess their faith, for shame, and for fear of the Pharisees, He cried with a loud voice, to drive away this shame and fear: "He that believeth in Me" believeth not in a mere poor and wretched man, but in a man who is also God, and he therefore "believes in God who sent Me," in God the Father with Whom I am consubstantial. Be not ashamed of my poverty and humility, for though I am outwardly poor and humble, yet in my inward nature I am rich and highly exalted. For I am God of God. And therefore he that believeth in Me believeth in God. But what is more noble and glorious than to believe in God? What can he fear or be ashamed of who believes in God? S. Cyril adds, "Jesus cried out to signify that He did not wish to be worshipped in a cowardly and stealthy way, but that He wished us boldly and clearly to profess and proclaim the faith." "Again He cried out," says Rupertus, "because He had but little time left Him to preach in. He then who wishes to hear Me, to believe and be saved, should do so at once, for after three days no one will be able to hear Me." And so S. Chrysostom says, "Why do ye fear to believe in Me? Faith in God comes through Me. just as he who drinks the water of the river, drinks he not of the source?" And S. Augustine, "Because the manhood only appeared to men, and the Godhead was latent, lest they should think Him to be only that which they saw (a man), and He wished Himself to be believed in (as God) the same and as great as the Father; He saith, 'He that believeth in Me, believeth not in Me,' that is, in that which He seeth, 'but in Him who sent Me, that is, in the Father.'" It is, however, quite plain that the Son is God, consubstantial with God the Father. The Arians denied this, and objected: He who believeth in the Apostles who were sent by God, believeth in God, and yet does not believe that the Apostles are gods. I reply by denying the conclusion. We believe the Apostles, but not in the Apostles. But Christ here says, "He who believeth in Me, believeth in Him who sent Me." But no one believes in any one, excepting in Him who is God. If, then, we believe in Christ, we believe that He is God: and since there is but one God, we believe that He is numerically the same God with God the Father. And therefore He says, "He that believeth in Me, believeth in Him that sent Me;" He who believes in Me as God the Son, believes also in God My Father, for we have both one nature and one majesty. So SS. Augustine, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others. Whence Christ adds, to make it clearer still,*H And he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.
Ver. 45. He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me. In what sense these words are true, see John xiv. v. 9. where they are repeated again, and with other expressions to the same sense. Wi.
*Lapide
. And he that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me. Because the nature of us both is one only. And just as through My manhood he sees the Godhead which is latent therein, so does he also see the Godhead of My Father, since it is one and the same. And so S. Augustine says, "He shows that there is no difference whatever between Himself and the Father, insomuch that He who seeth Him seeth the Father." Hear S. Cyril in the Council of Ephesus (speaking in our Lord's name): "Oh, my faithful hearers, do not think meanly and humbly of Me. But rather be most fully persuaded of this respecting Me, that if ye believe in Me, ye will believe in Him who is not merely one among many, but in the Father Himself through Me His Son, and that though I became man for your sakes, yet am I in every respect equal to the Father, and in no respect whatever severed or separated from Him, inasmuch as I am endowed with the same nature, power, and glory with Him."*Lapide
. I am come a Light into the world , c. Christ calls Himself again and again the Light of the world, which sets forth the true faith in God, His worship, devotion towar s Him, virtue, and all things which tend to our salvation, and also dispels the darkness of unbelief, idolatry, and all errors and vices, so that what the sun is in the material world, is He in the spiritual. "The word light," says S. Cyril, "indicates Godhead, for it is the property of God to be the Light of the world. For God in His Essence is spiritual, uncreate, boundless Light, from which every created light, whether spiritual or material, whether of angels or men, whether of the sun or stars or of the elements, is derived as a ray from the Sun." But it is the peculiar property of the Son that He proceeds from God the Father after the manner of a ray, and of light, according to the Nicene Creed: "Light of Light, Very God of Very God." For He proceedeth from the Father by understanding and knowledge, as the verbal expression of the mind, which, like the brightest mirror, represents all things. As the Book of Wisdom says (Wis 7: 26), "It is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness." And Heb 1:3 , "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the image of His substance." And Ecclus. 24:6 ( Vulg .), "I made the never-failing Light to arise in the heavens." These things are spoken of Christ as God. But as man He was sent by God the Father into the world, to enlighten it as the sun in the heavens, when overwhelmed with the darkness of ignorance, unbelief, and sin. See S. Joh 1:6-7 . Symbolically, S. Gregory ( Moral. xxv. 4) says that eternal Light, which is God, the more changelessly it shines the more piercingly does it see. Even things which are hid it knows well, for it penetrates through all things, and keeps them in memory, because it changelessly abides. And consequently, whenever we conceive in our minds an unworthy thought, we sin in the light. Because It is present to us, even when we are not present to It. And when we walk in crooked ways we stumble against that, from which we are in our deserts far away. But when we believe that we are not seen, we keep our eyes closed in the sunlight. That is, we hide Him from ourselves, but not ourselves from Him. The same S. Gregory ( Epist. vii. 32, ad Dom. ) says, "The warmth of the shepherd is the light of the flock. For the priest of the Lord should shine forth in his conduct and life, in order that the people committed to his charge may be able in the mirror of his life to choose what to follow, and see what to correct."*H And if any man hear my words and keep them not, I do not judge him for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Ver. 47. I do not judge him. To judge here, may signify to condemn. S. Aug. expounds it in this manner: I do not judge him at this my first coming. S. Chrys. says, it is not I only that judgeth him, but the works also that I do.
*Lapide
. And if any hear My words, and keep them not, I judge him not. That is, does not retain them in his mind, "believes them not," as in the Greek, though the Vulgate, agreeing with the Syriac and Arabic, reads " Keep them not ;" as Christ explains in the next verse. By the words " I judge him not ," Christ means, I came not into the world to judge it but to save it. But a man who believes not on Me, is at once condemned and judged by his own wickedness and unbelief, and also by the eternal decree of the Father. This is plain from what follows. So S. Cyril, Theophylact, Leontius, and others. See notes on chap. iii. 18. This decree of the Father I will execute at the day of judgment, when I shall return to judge the world, as I have now come to redeem it. S. Chrysostom says, "I judge not," that is, I am not the cause of his ruin, but he is himself its cause in despising My words. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. That is, the inhabitants of the world. "Now," says S. Augustine, "is the time of mercy, hereafter the time of judgment."* Footnotes
-
*
Matthew
16:16
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
*Lapide
. He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him. He that believeth not My words will have God as his judge, who will judge him by Me at the judgment day. For, as S. Augustine says ( de Trinit. i. 28), Christ will not judge by His human power, but by the power of the Word of God. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day. S. Augustine ( in loc .) understands by the "Word" Christ Himself, for He will be the judge. "He has sufficiently set forth that He will be the judge at the last day, for He spake of Himself. He announced Himself, He placed Himself as the Door by which He as Shepherd came in to the sheep." Others more clearly, and with greater force, say, My word heard and not believed in by the Jews will accuse them at the day of judgment, and with mute voice will proclaim them worthy of hell. "That word," says Rupertus, "which they heard, which they could not but know to be true, as approved by the wondrous testimony of His miracles, that word will judge, will reprove, will convict. But where will that judge be seated? What sentences of judgment will He give from His throne? He will be close at hand. He will hold His court within. He will proclaim full terribly in the conscience of each one His just sentence. There is a prosopopœia. The word of Christ is here introduced as a person, and as a witness against unbelievers before Christ as Judge in the day of judgment.* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 59, Article 5
[III, Q. 59, Art. 5]
Whether After the Judgment That Takes Place in the Present Time, There Remains Yet Another General Judgment?
Objection 1: It would seem that after the Judgment that takes place in the present time, there does not remain another General Judgment. For a judgment serves no purpose after the final allotment of rewards and punishments. But rewards and punishments are allotted in this present time: for our Lord said to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43): "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise": and (Luke 16:22) it is said that "the rich man died and was buried in hell." Therefore it is useless to look forward to a final Judgment.
Obj. 2: Further, according to another (the Septuagint) version of Nahum 1:9, "God shall not judge the same thing a second time." But in the present time God judges both temporal and spiritual matters. Therefore, it does not seem that another final judgment is to be expected.
Obj. 3: Further, reward and punishment correspond with merit and demerit. But merit and demerit bear relation to the body only in so far as it is the instrument of the soul. Therefore reward or punishment is not due to the body save as the soul's instrument. Therefore no other Judgment is called for at the end (of the world) to requite man with reward or punishment in the body, besides that Judgment in which souls are now punished or rewarded.
_On the contrary,_ It is said in John 12:48: "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge you [Vulg.: 'him'] in the last day." Therefore there will be a Judgment at the last day besides that which takes place in the present time.
_I answer that,_ Judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any changeable subject before its consummation: just as judgment cannot be given perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its completion in itself and in its results: because many actions appear to be profitable, which in their effects prove to be hurtful. And in the same way perfect judgment cannot be passed upon any man before the close of his life, since he can be changed in many respects from good to evil, or conversely, or from good to better, or from evil to worse. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:27): "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the Judgment."
But it must be observed that although man's temporal life in itself ends with death, still it continues dependent in a measure on what comes after it in the future. In one way, as it still lives on in men's memories, in which sometimes, contrary to the truth, good or evil reputations linger on. In another way in a man's children, who are so to speak something of their parent, according to Ecclus. 30:4: "His father is dead, and he is as if he were not dead, for he hath left one behind him that is like himself." And yet many good men have wicked sons, and conversely. Thirdly, as to the result of his actions: just as from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders unbelief continues to flourish down to the close of the world; and even until then faith will continue to derive its progress from the preaching of the apostles. In a fourth way, as to the body, which is sometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied, and finally falls to dust utterly. In a fifth way, as to the things upon which a man's heart is set, such as temporal concerns, for example, some of which quickly lapse, while others endure longer.
Now all these things are submitted to the verdict of the Divine Judgment; and consequently, a perfect and public Judgment cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time. Wherefore, there must be a final Judgment at the last day, in which everything concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly and publicly judged.
Reply Obj. 1: Some men have held the opinion that the souls of the saints shall not be rewarded in heaven, nor the souls of the lost punished in hell, until the Judgment-day. That this is false appears from the testimony of the Apostle (2 Cor. 5:8), where he says: "We are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord": that is, not to "walk by faith" but "by sight," as appears from the context. But this is to see God in His Essence, wherein consists "eternal life," as is clear from John 17:3. Hence it is manifest that the souls separated from bodies are in eternal life.
Consequently, it must be maintained that after death man enters into an unchangeable state as to all that concerns the soul: and therefore there is no need for postponing judgment as to the reward of the soul. But since there are some other things pertaining to a man which go on through the whole course of time, and which are not foreign to the Divine judgment, all these things must be brought to judgment at the end of time. For although in regard to such things a man neither merits nor demerits, still in a measure they accompany his reward or punishment. Consequently all these things must be weighed in the final judgment.
Reply Obj. 2: "God shall not judge twice the same thing," i.e. in the same respect; but it is not unseemly for God to judge twice according to different respects.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the reward or punishment of the body depends upon the reward or punishment of the soul, nevertheless, since the soul is changeable only accidentally, on account of the body, once it is separated from the body it enters into an unchangeable condition, and receives its judgment. But the body remains subject to change down to the close of time: and therefore it must receive its reward or punishment then, in the last Judgment. _______________________
SIXTH