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.
*H And Jesus went unto mount Olivet.
Ver. 1, &c.[1] The last verse of the foregoing chapter, and the eleven verses that follow in this, are not found in the greater part of our present Greek copies, yet they are in some MSS. and so are retained in the Prot. translation. We read nothing of them in the commentaries of S. Chrys. or S. Cyril; but S. Jerom (l. ii. con. Pelag. tom. 4, part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) says, they were found in many both Lat. and Gr. copies. S. Amb. (Ep. 52.) says this passage, of the woman taken in adultery, was always famous in the Church. S. Aug. expounds them, tract. in Joan, &c. Wi.
*Lapide
. But Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. On the last day of the Feast Jesus had taught in the temple, and confuted the Pharisees, while they, after their wont, returned home to a sumptuous banquet. But no one showed hospitality to Jesus for fear of the rulers and Pharisees. He went therefore probably to Gethsemane, to continue there all night in prayer (see Joh 18:1-2 , and Mat 26:36 ). Food was either secretly sent Him by Martha from Bethany, or bought by the disciples at Jerusalem. He selected this spot as His nightly refuge, or rather His place of prayer, six months before His death, and used to retire there to pray by night (see Mat 26:36 ). The Mount of Olives was a type of Christ's sorrow, when He there prayed for the pardon of sinners: as the feast of tabernacles signified that He and His people are but strangers and pilgrims here, on their way to their heavenly country, travelling from the wealthy and splendid city Jerusalem, to the mountain of heavenly refreshment.*Lapide
. And early in the morning, c. He gave the night to prayer, the day to teaching, setting an example to apostolic men, as S. Paul, S. Francis Xavier, and others.*Lapide
, 4, 5. But the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery, c. Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. This story is not found in the Greek Fathers, but as it is found in the Vulgate and thus approved by the Council of Trent, Cornelius à Lapide regards it as canonical. Here note that the Mosaic law ordered adulteresses to be killed. But the rulers ordered them to be stoned, according to the Rabbinical tradition. For the Law ordered a betrothed woman should be stoned, if she had committed adultery, and thence the Scribes extended this punishment to an adulterous wife. But the punishment of stoning ( Lev 20:10 ) is to be extended to all the cases mentioned in that chapter. (See also Eze 16:38-40 .) And this is clear from the History of Susanna, where, by the law of requital, her false accusers were stoned. This was also the punishment of adulteresses in many heathen nations. (See notes on Gen 38:24 , and Num. v. ad fin. )* Footnotes
-
*
Leviticus
20:10
If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife: let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress.
*H And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.
Ver. 6. Wrote with his finger, as one that was musing about something else. W.
*Lapide
. This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him, as being opposed to the law, if He said that she was not to be stoned, but as cruel and harsh if He said otherwise. But they rather supposed He would not order her to be stoned, "in order to keep up His appearance of gentleness, and not to lose the favour of the people." So Rupertus, Bede, and S. Augustine, who says, "They saw that He was very gentle; they said therefore among themselves, If He rules that she be let go, He will not observe that righteousness which the Law enjoins. But not to lose His (character for) gentleness, by which He has already won the love of the people, He will say that she ought to be released. And we shall hence find occasion to accuse Him. But the Lord in His answer both observed justice, and did not forego His gentleness." They thought to accuse Him of violating the law by her acquittal, and would say to Him, says S. Augustine, "Thou art an enemy of the law, thou judgest contrary to Moses, or rather against Him who gave the law. Thou art guilty of death, and must be stoned together with her." But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. To turn away His face, not so much from the adulteress as from her accusers, as if to say, "Why do ye bring her before Me, who am not a civil judge, but the physician and Saviour of sinners?" So S. Augustine. Some Greek MSS. add μὴ πζοσποιούμενος , not attending to them and their accusations . Though Toletus and others translate, "not pretending, but really writing on the ground." Either meaning is suitable. (2.) Christ refers to Jer 17:1 . "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond," and as S. Augustine, S. Jerome and others say more fittingly on verse 13, "They that depart from thee, shall be written in the earth." Jeremiah has here painted you, O Scribes, to the life. Ye accuse this adulteress, but ye have committed greater sins than hers; ye deserve punishment rather than she doth; ye deserve to be stoned more than she does, even to be cast into hell. For your sins of rebellion, unbelief, obstinacy, and persecution against Me are indelible, written as it were with a pen of iron, and the point of a diamond, because ye have forsaken the Lord and turned your back upon Him, therefore has He in His turn turned His back upon you." (See Jer 18:17 .) Ye have neglected heavenly, and followed after worldly goods, and therefore ye will speedily pass away with them, just as that which is written in the earth soon comes to nothing by a breath of wind, and by the foot passing over it. Ye have departed from God, and therefore ye will not be written in Heaven, but on the earth, yea in its very centre, in hell itself. ( See S Augustine Lib. iv . de. Consen. Evang., cap. 10.) And S. Ambrose (Ep. lxxvi. ad Studitem ) says, "He wrote on the ground, for sinners are written on the earth, the just in heaven." Symbolically, S. Augustine (as above) gives two other reasons. (1.) To show that He worked miracles on earth, for, though God, He humbled Himself to become man, for miracles are signs which are wrought on earth. (2.) To point out that the time had now come for His law to be written on the fruitful earth, not on barren stones. (3.) He adds here ( Tract. xxxiii.) a third reason, that it was to signify that it was He who had written the old law on tables of stone, but that the new law was to be written on the productive earth. But what did Christ write? He could not in the paved court of the temple cut out the shape of the letters, but merely delineate them with His finger. But He seems to have marked out something to put them to shame, or to expose their sin. For He added, in explanation of what He had done, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." S. Jerome even says that He wrote the mortal sins of the Scribes and of all men ( Lib. ii. Contra Pelag .), S. Ambrose ( Ep . lvi.) that He wrote Jer. xxii. 29; and ( Epist. lxxix.) that He wrote among other words, Thou seest the mote in thy brother's eye, but seest not the beam in thine own. Others think that He wrote " Mene, Mene " ( Dan 5:25 ). But nothing certain can be stated.* Footnotes
-
*
Deuteronomy
17:7
The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people: that thou mayst take away the evil out of the midst of thee.
*H When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Ver. 7. We cannot with any propriety reprehend or condemn faults in others, if we ourselves be guilty of the same, or other great faults, S. Cyril, in Joan. — See annotations on Matt. vii, v. 1.
*Lapide
. When therefore they continued asking Him. Because they did not see clearly what He had written, or pretended they did not. They therefore urge Him to reply explicitly to their captious question, believing that He could not escape from the horns of a dilemma by going against the law if He acquitted the woman or against His own compassion, were He to condemn her. He lifted up Himself and said, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Ye Scribes and Pharisees have committed greater sins than this woman, as your conscience testifies; do not therefore so rigidly and importunately urge her condemnation, but rather have pity for her, as sinners for a sinner, as guilty for a guilty one, as criminals for a criminal. For otherwise, if ye condemn her, ye ought to condemn yourselves; if ye wish to stone her, ye yourselves ought to be stoned, nay more, to be burned. Observe Christ's prudence. He maintains the law in conceding that an adulteress was guilty of death, but adds that the Scribes should not so pertinaciously urge her death, but rather have compassion on her, since outwardly professing sanctity, but inwardly conscious of greater sins, they should wish indulgence to be shown to themselves both by God and man. So S. Augustine. "Ye have heard, Let the law be fulfilled, let the adulteress be stoned. But in punishing her must the law be fulfilled by those who deserve punishment?" And again, "Jesus said not, Let her not be stoned; lest He should seem to speak against the law. But be it far from Him to say, Let her be stoned; for He came not to destroy that which He had formed, but to save that which had perished. What then answered He? 'He who is without sin of you,' c.0 answer of wisdom! How did He make them look unto themselves! They brought charges against others, they did not carefully search out themselves within." "What more divine," says S. Ambrose, "than that saying, that He should punish sin who is Himself devoid of it? For how couldest thou endure one who punishes another's sin, and defends his own? For does he not condemn himself the more, who condemns in another what he himself commits?" But thou wilt say Christ here seems to do away with the use of tribunals of justice, and their strictness. But I answer, Christ launched not this sentence against judges, but only against the Scribes, who as private persons contended that Christ should take on Himself to judge the adulteress, and condemn her according to law. This He refused to do, and having been sent to save, and not to condemn sinners, He retorted it upon themselves, as follows; "If ye are not judges, and yet are so desirous of punishing this adultery, take it upon yourselves, stone the adulteress, if ye are so pure and holy as not to have committed adultery, or any other sin;" for if the Scribes had condemned her to be stoned, Jesus would not have freed her from the punishment she justly deserved. Moreover, it is the judge's duty to condemn a criminal, when convicted, though conscious that he is himself guilty of the same or a similar offence. And yet, if guilty himself it is unseemly in him to condemn another for a like offence. Christ then in these words quietly advises judges to lead innocent lives themselves. As a moral rule, Christ teaches us that we ought to judge ourselves before we judge others. S. Gregory ( Moral. Lib. 13 . cap. iv.) gives the reason. "For he who judges not himself in the first place, knows not how to pass right judgment on another. For his own conscience supplies no rule to go by. These Scribes then are summoned first to look within, and find out their own faults, before reproving others." On which head there are well known proverbs. "First prune thy own vineyards," c. Ver 8. And again stooping down He wrote on the ground. Both to inspire them with shame, and also to give the Scribes time to withdraw creditably. So S. Jerome ( Lib. ii contra Pelag .), and Bede, who adds, "He saw that they were staggered, and would be more likely to retire at once than to put any more questions."* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 87, Article 4
[III, Q. 87, Art. 4]
Whether Venial Sin Can Be Taken Away Without Mortal Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin. For, on John 8:7: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," a gloss says that "all those men were in a state of mortal sin: for venial offenses were forgiven them through the legal ceremonies." Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.
Obj. 2: Further, no infusion of grace is required for the remission of venial sin, but it is required for the forgiveness of mortal sin. Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.
Obj. 3: Further, a venial sin differs from a mortal sin more than from another venial sin. But one venial sin can be pardoned without another, as stated above (A. 3, ad 2; Q. 87, A. 3). Therefore a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:26): "Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence," viz., from the prison, into which a man is cast for mortal sin, "till thou repay the last farthing," by which venial sin is denoted. Therefore a venial sin is not forgiven without mortal sin.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 87, A. 3), there is no remission of any sin whatever except by the power of grace, because, as the Apostle declares (Rom. 4:8), it is owing to God's grace that He does not impute sin to a man, which a gloss on that passage expounds as referring to venial sin. Now he that is in a state of mortal sin is without the grace of God. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven him.
Reply Obj. 1: Venial offenses, in the passage quoted, denote the irregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance with the Law.
Reply Obj. 2: Although no new infusion of habitual grace is requisite for the remission of venial sin, yet it is necessary to exercise some act of grace, which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin.
Reply Obj. 3: Venial sin does not preclude every act of grace whereby all venial sins can be removed; whereas mortal sin excludes altogether the habit of grace, without which no sin, either mortal or venial, is remitted. Hence the comparison fails. _______________________
*H But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.
Ver. 9. Went out one by one, [2] confounded, and as it is in the ordinary Greek copies, convicted by their own conscience. Wi.
*Lapide
. But on hearing this they went out one by one. Some Greek copies add, "Convicted by their own conscience," as being adulterers, or even worse. For what Jesus said was true, and ought to strike home to them. And hence S. Augustine says ( Epist. liv.), "Methinks that even the husband himself who had been wronged, would on hearing these words have shrunk back from his desire for punishment." Went out. "By their very withdrawal," says S. Augustine, "confessing that they were guilty of like offences. For they were smitten with a keen sense of justice on looking within, and finding themselves guilty." They feared also lest Christ should proceed still further to expose their crimes. Beginning at the eldest. As being more inveterate sinners, like the false accusers of Susanna, or because they first felt the force of His words. As says S. Ambrose, "They first felt the strength of His answer, which they could not reply to, and being quicker of apprehension, they were the first to go away." And He was left alone, c. "Two were left," says S. Augustine, "misery and commiseration;" deep calling upon deep, the depth of her misery on the depth of His compassion. But she fled not, as having experienced His grace, and hoping for more.*Lapide
. When Jesus had lifted up Himself, c. Lifting up on her His eyes of gentleness, as He had repulsed His adversaries with the words of righteousness, as saith S. Augustine. He spoke to her, (1.) to show that He had driven away her accusers, and that she could acknowledge what Jesus had, in His mercy, done for her, and ask pardon from Him of her sin. (2.) That He might the more readily absolve her, because her accusers had withdrawn their charge, and had fled away, as doubting the justice of their cause.*H Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.
Ver. 11. Hence we may see how impious is the doctrine of those who say that God is the author of sin. Christ did not say to the woman: I do not condemn thy sin; or, go and live now as thou pleasest, I will free thee from all punishment due to any sin thou shalt commit: but he only said, Go, and from henceforth sin no more: thus preserving his amiable virtue of clemency, and still not encouraging vice. S. Aug.
*Lapide
. She said, No man, Lord, c. I who am alone free from all sin, and appointed by God to judge the world, might most justly condemn thee. But I do not, because I came not to judge, but to save the world. Thus S. Ambrose; "See how He moderated His answer, so that the Jews could not accuse him for acquitting her; but rather throw it back on themselves, if they chose to complain. For she is dismissed, not absolved; inasmuch as no one accused her, she was not acquitted as innocent. Why then should they complain who had already withdrawn from prosecuting the charge and from enforcing the punishment? Moreover Christ by these words absolved the woman not only in open court before the people, but in the court of heaven, before God, as is plain from what He subjoins. Go, as being certain that I have forgiven thy adultery. As He said to the Magdalene, "Go in peace" (Luk 7:50Luk 7:50 ). But Christ says not that openly, but secretly; lest the Pharisees should have something to carp at. Christ therefore inspired in her secret sorrow for her sins and an act of contrition, and then pardoned her sins, condoning her sin and its punishment together. "He condemns not," says S. Ambrose, "as being our Redemption, but reproves her as our life, and cleanses her as our fountain." And Euthymius, "Such an exposure and shame before so many adversaries was a sufficient punishment, more especially when He knew that she was heartily penitent." So Jansen and others. And sin no more. Returning as a dog to its vomit. For thou wilt thus in thy ingratitude sin more grievously, and wilt defile thy soul; and though I do not condemn thee, yet will I certainly condemn thee in the day of judgment. Hear S. Augustine. "What means, I will not condemn thee? Dost Thou, O Lord, favour sin? Assuredly not; for listen to what follows, Go and sin no more. The Lord therefore condemned the sin, but not the person. For else He would have said, Go and live as thou wilt, being sure of my forgiveness." To which Bede adds, "Since He is pitiful and tender He forgives the past; but as just, and loving justice, He forbids her sin any more."* Footnotes
-
*
1_John
1:3
That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
*Lapide
. Then said Jesus again unto them, I am the Light of the world. The Gloss connects these words with what had immediately preceded, in this way: "He adds what His Divinity could effect, in order that no one should doubt His power of forgiving sin." Marvel not that I set free the adulteress from the darkness of sin, for I am the uncreated Light of the world, i.e ., God. And He adds below (ver. 15), " Judge no one ;" I neither sentence nor acquit the woman in a human court, but in the court of heaven. But others refer back His words to verse 2, where His discourse had been broken off by the Scribes. Having put them to shame, He resumes His teaching. So S. Chrysostom and others. S. Chrysostom adds, "The Jews objected to Christ that He was a Galilean; He shows that He was not merely one of the Prophets, but the Lord of heaven and earth." I am the Light of the world; and hence the Manicheans thought that He was the sun. And S. August ne, being a Platonist, at one time had his doubts about it ( see Euchir. lviii.) But commenting on this passage he mentions and confutes their folly. "Christ the Lord was not the sun which was made, He was its Maker, ' For all things were made by Him ,' c. He therefore is the Light, which made this light of ours. Let us love It, let us long to understand It, let us thirst for It, that so at length we may attain to the Light Itself, and so live therein that we may never die. For He is the Light, of whom the Psalmist foretold, 'Thou shalt save both man and beast, so multifold is Thy mercy.'" And further on, "By this Light was the light of the sun made, and the Light which made the sun (beneath which He made us also) was made beneath the sun for our sakes. He, I say who made the sun. Despise not the veil ( nubem ) of His flesh. The sun is covered by a cloud, not to obscure, but to temper its rays. Speaking then through the veil of His flesh, the Light which never fails, the Light of knowledge, the Light of wisdom says to men, I am the Light of the world. " But how Christ as God is the boundless and uncreated Light and as man the created "light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," I have shown at length on chap. i. 4, and also on Is. xlv. 1, that Christ is the Sun of His Kingdom. Of this world. And not, like the Prophets, merely the light of Israel and Judah. He tacitly here foretells the conversion of the Gentiles. So S. Cyril, who adds that He here alludes to the pillar of the cloud in the wilderness. For Christ as a brilliant light shines before us in the darkness and sin of the world, and guides us to heaven. He that followeth Me, by believing in Me as the Christ, and obeying My commands, walketh not in darkness, in which the wise men of this world walked, but liveth without error and sin, in the light of true faith and virtue. But shall have the light of life. "Now by faith, hereafter by sight," says S. Augustine, who adds "These words agree with those of the Psalmist, 'In Thy Light shall we see light, for with Thee is the fount of life.'" In things of the body the light is one thing, the fountain another. But with God the Light and the Fount are one and the same. It shines for thee, that thou mayest see; It flows for thee, that thou mayest drink. If thou followest this sun which thou seest, it leaves thee when it sets; but if thou fallest not away from God, He will never set to thee. The light of life, therefore, according to Augustine and Bede, the light of glory, giving blessing to the faithful and saints which they themselves will obtain from Him in heaven. Others understand by it the light of faith, leading us to glory and very blessedness. For faith is a torch, guiding the faithful through the darkness of the world, showing them the true way of life, by which they can without stumbling attain to eternal blessedness. So S. Cyril, "He will attain to that revelation of the mysteries in Me, which will bring him to eternal life." But (3) the light of life can be explained as the quickening life, for faith, conjoined with the grace of God and charity, is the Divine and supernatural light, which quickens the soul, breathing into it the life of grace here, and the life of glory hereafter. Hence learn that the doctrine and life of Christ must be imitated by every man who wishes to be truly enlightened, and to be purged from all blindness of mind. S. Thomas à Kempis lays this down as an axiom in his golden book ( De imitatione Christi ), which contains as many axioms as sentences, which I study daily with much delight and profit. I know many who are striving after perfection, and who strive to conform their several actions to some one action, doctrine, or saying of Christ, ever looking at it as their ideal, and endeavouring to set it forth in all their actions. This is a pious and profitable means of attaining perfect holiness. For Christ was specially given as a mirror of sanctity. For what is more holy than the Saint of saints? What brighter than the Sun, and Light Itself? what wiser than Wisdom Itself?* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 102, Article 4
[I-II, Q. 102, Art. 4]
Whether Sufficient Reason Can Be Assigned for the Ceremonies Pertaining to Holy Things?
Objection 1: It would seem that no sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies of the Old Law that pertain to holy things. For Paul said (Acts 17:24): "God Who made the world and all things therein; He being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made by hands." It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a tabernacle or temple should be set up for the worship of God.
Obj. 2: Further, the state of the Old Law was not changed except by Christ. But the tabernacle denoted the state of the Old Law. Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.
Obj. 3: Further, the Divine Law, more than any other indeed, should lead man to the worship of God. But an increase of divine worship requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under the Old Law there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.
Obj. 4: Further, the tabernacle or temple was ordained to the worship of God. But in God we should worship above all His unity and simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or temple to be divided by means of veils.
Obj. 5: Further, the power of the First Mover, i.e. God, appears first of all in the east, for it is in that quarter that the first movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of God. Therefore it should have been built so as to point to the east rather than the west.
Obj. 6: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:4) that they should "not make . . . a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything." It was therefore unfitting for graven images of the cherubim to be set up in the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory, the candlestick, the table, the two altars, seem to have been placed there without reasonable cause.
Obj. 7: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make an altar of earth unto Me": and again (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar." It was therefore unfitting that subsequently they should be commanded to make an altar of wood laid over with gold or brass; and of such a height that it was impossible to go up to it except by steps. For it is written (Ex. 27:1, 2): "Thou shalt make also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits long, and as many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and thou shalt cover it with brass": and (Ex. 30:1, 3): "Thou shalt make . . . an altar to burn incense, of setim wood . . . and thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold."
Obj. 8: Further, in God's works nothing should be superfluous; for not even in the works of nature is anything superfluous to be found. But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many coverings, viz. curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and violet-colored skins (Ex. 26).
Objection 9: Further, exterior consecration signifies interior holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore unsuitable for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated, since they were inanimate things.
Objection 10: Further, it is written (Ps. 33:2): "I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall always be in my mouth." But the solemn festivals were instituted for the praise of God. Therefore it was not fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn festivals; so that it seems that there was no suitable cause for the ceremonies relating to holy things.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 8:4) that those who "offer gifts according to the law . . . serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the mount." But that is most reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore the ceremonies relating to holy things had a reasonable cause.
_I answer that,_ The chief purpose of the whole external worship is that man may give worship to God. Now man's tendency is to reverence less those things which are common, and indistinct from other things; whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct from others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among men for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced by their subjects, to be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess vaster and more beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved special times, a special abode, special vessels, and special ministers to be appointed for the divine worship, so that thereby the soul of man might be brought to greater reverence for God.
In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above (A. 2; Q. 100, A. 12; Q. 101, A. 2), was instituted that it might foreshadow the mystery of Christ. Now that which foreshadows something should be determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto. Consequently, certain special points had to be observed in matters pertaining to the worship of God.
Reply Obj. 1: The divine worship regards two things: namely, God Who is worshipped; and men, who worship Him. Accordingly God, Who is worshipped, is confined to no bodily place: wherefore there was no need, on His part, for a tabernacle or temple to be set up. But men, who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for the worship of God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together with the thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they might approach thither with greater reverence. Secondly, that certain things relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature might be signified by the arrangement of various details in such temple or tabernacle.
To this Solomon refers (3 Kings 8:27) when he says: "If heaven and the heavens of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built" for Thee? And further on (3 Kings 8:29, 20) he adds: "That Thy eyes may be open upon this house . . . of which Thou hast said: My name shall be there; . . . that Thou mayest hearken to the supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel." From this it is evident that the house of the sanctuary was set up, not in order to contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might be made known there by means of things done and said there; and that those who prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray more devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.
Reply Obj. 2: Before the coming of Christ, the state of the Old Law was not changed as regards the fulfilment of the Law, which was effected in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the people were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were engaged in various wars with the neighboring nations; and lastly, at the time of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one of great peace. And then for the first time the temple was built in the place which Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen for the purpose of sacrifice. For it is written (Gen. 22:2) that the Lord commanded Abraham to "offer" his son "for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show thee": and it is related further on (Gen. 22:14) that "he calleth the name of that place, The Lord seeth," as though, according to the Divine prevision, that place were chosen for the worship of God. Hence it is written (Deut. 12:5, 6): "You shall come to the place which the Lord your God shall choose . . . and you shall offer . . . your holocausts and victims."
Now it was not meet for that place to be pointed out by the building of the temple before the aforesaid time; for three reasons assigned by Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that place. Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy it. The third reason is lest each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and strifes and quarrels be the result. Hence the temple was not built until they had a king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until that time a portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no place being as yet fixed for the worship of God. This is the literal reason for the distinction between the tabernacle and the temple.
The figurative reason may be assigned to the fact that they signify a twofold state. For the tabernacle, which was changeable, signifies the state of the present changeable life: whereas the temple, which was fixed and stable, signifies the state of future life which is altogether unchangeable. For this reason it is said that in the building of the temple no sound was heard of hammer or saw, to signify that all movements of disturbance will be far removed from the future state. Or else the tabernacle signifies the state of the Old Law; while the temple built by Solomon betokens the state of the New Law. Hence the Jews alone worked at the building of the tabernacle; whereas the temple was built with the cooperation of the Gentiles, viz. the Tyrians and Sidonians.
Reply Obj. 3: The reason for the unity of the temple or tabernacle may be either literal or figurative. The literal reason was the exclusion of idolatry. For the Gentiles put up various temples to various gods: and so, to strengthen in the minds of men their belief in the unity of the Godhead, God wished sacrifices to be offered to Him in one place only. Another reason was in order to show that bodily worship is not acceptable of itself: and so they restrained from offering sacrifices anywhere and everywhere. But the worship of the New Law, in the sacrifice whereof spiritual grace is contained, is of itself acceptable to God; and consequently the multiplication of altars and temples is permitted in the New Law.
As to those matters that regarded the spiritual worship of God, consisting in the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, there were, even under the Old Law, various places, called synagogues, appointed for the people to gather together for the praise of God; just as now there are places called churches in which the Christian people gather together for the divine worship. Thus our church takes the place of both temple and synagogue: since the very sacrifice of the Church is spiritual; wherefore with us the place of sacrifice is not distinct from the place of teaching. The figurative reason may be that hereby is signified the unity of the Church, whether militant or triumphant.
Reply Obj. 4: Just as the unity of the temple or tabernacle betokened the unity of God, or the unity of the Church, so also the division of the tabernacle or temple signified the distinction of those things that are subject to God, and from which we arise to the worship of God. Now the tabernacle was divided into two parts: one was called the "Holy of Holies," and was placed to the west; the other was called the "Holy Place" [*Or 'Sanctuary'. The Douay version uses both expressions], which was situated to the east. Moreover there was a court facing the tabernacle. Accordingly there are two reasons for this distinction. One is in respect of the tabernacle being ordained to the worship of God. Because the different parts of the world are thus betokened by the division of the tabernacle. For that part which was called the Holy of Holies signified the higher world, which is that of spiritual substances: while that part which is called the Holy Place signified the corporeal world. Hence the Holy Place was separated from the Holy of Holies by a veil, which was of four different colors (denoting the four elements), viz. of linen, signifying earth, because linen, i.e. flax, grows out of the earth; purple, signifying water, because the purple tint was made from certain shells found in the sea; violet, signifying air, because it has the color of the air; and scarlet twice dyed, signifying fire: and this because matter composed of the four elements is a veil between us and incorporeal substances. Hence the high-priest alone, and that once a year, entered into the inner tabernacle, i.e. the Holy of Holies: whereby we are taught that man's final perfection consists in his entering into that (higher) world: whereas into the outward tabernacle, i.e. the Holy Place, the priests entered every day: whereas the people were only admitted to the court; because the people were able to perceived material things, the inner nature of which only wise men by dint of study are able to discover.
But with regard to the figurative reason, the outward tabernacle, which was called the Holy Place, betokened the state of the Old Law, as the Apostle says (Heb. 9:6, seqq.): because into that tabernacle "the priests always entered accomplishing the offices of sacrifices." But the inner tabernacle, which was called the Holy of Holies, signified either the glory of heaven or the spiritual state of the New Law to come. To the latter state Christ brought us; and this was signified by the high-priest entering alone, once a year, into the Holy of Holies. The veil betokened the concealing of the spiritual sacrifices under the sacrifices of old. This veil was adorned with four colors: viz. that of linen, to designate purity of the flesh; purple, to denote the sufferings which the saints underwent for God; scarlet twice dyed, signifying the twofold love of God and our neighbor; and violet, in token of heavenly contemplation. With regard to the state of the Old Law the people and the priests were situated differently from one another. For the people saw the mere corporeal sacrifices which were offered in the court: whereas the priests were intent on the inner meaning of the sacrifices, because their faith in the mysteries of Christ was more explicit. Hence they entered into the outer tabernacle. This outer tabernacle was divided from the court by a veil; because some matters relating to the mystery of Christ were hidden from the people, while they were known to the priests: though they were not fully revealed to them, as they were subsequently in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:5).
Reply Obj. 5: Worship towards the west was introduced in the Law to the exclusion of idolatry: because all the Gentiles, in reverence to the sun, worshipped towards the east; hence it is written (Ezech. 8:16) that certain men "had their backs towards the temple of the Lord, and their faces to the east, and they adored towards the rising of the sun." Accordingly, in order to prevent this, the tabernacle had the Holy of Holies to westward, that they might adore toward the west. A figurative reason may also be found in the fact that the whole state of the first tabernacle was ordained to foreshadow the death of Christ, which is signified by the west, according to Ps. 67:5: "Who ascendeth unto the west; the Lord is His name."
Reply Obj. 6: Both literal and figurative reasons may be assigned for the things contained in the tabernacle. The literal reason is in connection with the divine worship. And because, as already observed (ad 4), the inner tabernacle, called the Holy of Holies, signified the higher world of spiritual substances, hence that tabernacle contained three things, viz. "the ark of the testament in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the tables" (Heb. 9:4) on which were written the ten commandments of the Law. Now the ark stood between two "cherubim" that looked one towards the other: and over the ark was a table, called the "propitiatory," raised above the wings of the cherubim, as though it were held up by them; and appearing, to the imagination, to be the very seat of God. For this reason it was called the "propitiatory," as though the people received propitiation thence at the prayers of the high-priest. And so it was held up, so to speak, by the cherubim, in obedience, as it were, to God: while the ark of the testament was like the foot-stool to Him that sat on the propitiatory. These three things denote three things in that higher world: namely, God Who is above all, and incomprehensible to any creature. Hence no likeness of Him was set up; to denote His invisibility. But there was something to represent his seat; since, to wit, the creature, which is beneath God, as the seat under the sitter, is comprehensible. Again in that higher world there are spiritual substances called angels. These are signified by the two cherubim, looking one towards the other, to show that they are at peace with one another, according to Job 25:2: "Who maketh peace in . . . high places." For this reason, too, there was more than one cherub, to betoken the multitude of heavenly spirits, and to prevent their receiving worship from those who had been commanded to worship but one God. Moreover there are, enclosed as it were in that spiritual world, the intelligible types of whatsoever takes place in this world, just as in every cause are enclosed the types of its effects, and in the craftsman the types of the works of his craft. This was betokened by the ark, which represented, by means of the three things it contained, the three things of greatest import in human affairs. These are wisdom, signified by the tables of the testament; the power of governing, betokened by the rod of Aaron; and life, betokened by the manna which was the means of sustenance. Or else these three things signified the three Divine attributes, viz. wisdom, in the tables; power, in the rod; goodness, in the manna--both by reason of its sweetness, and because it was through the goodness of God that it was granted to man, wherefore it was preserved as a memorial of the Divine mercy. Again, these three things were represented in Isaias' vision. For he "saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; and the seraphim standing by; and that the house was filled with the glory of the Lord; wherefrom the seraphim cried out: "All the earth is full of His glory" (Isa. 6:1, 3). And so the images of the seraphim were set up, not to be worshipped, for this was forbidden by the first commandment; but as a sign of their function, as stated above.
The outer tabernacle, which denotes this present world, also contained three things, viz. the "altar of incense," which was directly opposite the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves of proposition on it, which stood on the northern side; and the "candlestick," which was placed towards the south. These three things seem to correspond to the three which were enclosed in the ark; and they represented the same things as the latter, but more clearly: because, in order that wise men, denoted by the priests entering the temple, might grasp the meaning of these types, it was necessary to express them more manifestly than they are in the Divine or angelic mind. Accordingly the candlestick betokened, as a sensible sign thereof, the wisdom which was expressed on the tables (of the Law) in intelligible words. The altar of incense signified the office of the priest, whose duty it was to bring the people to God: and this was signified also by the rod: because on that altar the sweet-smelling incense was burnt, signifying the holiness of the people acceptable to God: for it is written (Apoc. 8:3) that the smoke of the sweet-smelling spices signifies the "justifications of the saints" (cf. Apoc. 19:8). Moreover it was fitting that the dignity of the priesthood should be denoted, in the ark, by the rod, and, in the outer tabernacle, by the altar of incense: because the priest is the mediator between God and the people, governing the people by Divine power, denoted by the rod; and offering to God the fruit of His government, i.e. the holiness of the people, on the altar of incense, so to speak. The table signified the sustenance of life, just as the manna did: but the former, a more general and a coarser kind of nourishment; the latter, a sweeter and more delicate. Again, the candlestick was fittingly placed on the southern side, while the table was placed to the north: because the south is the right-hand side of the world, while the north is the left-hand side, as stated in _De Coelo et Mundo_ ii; and wisdom, like other spiritual goods, belongs to the right hand, while temporal nourishment belongs on the left, according to Prov. 3:16: "In her left hand (are) riches and glory." And the priestly power is midway between temporal goods and spiritual wisdom; because thereby both spiritual wisdom and temporal goods are dispensed.
Another literal signification may be assigned. For the ark contained the tables of the Law, in order to prevent forgetfulness of the Law, wherefore it is written (Ex. 24:12): "I will give thee two tables of stone, and the Law, and the commandments which I have written: that thou mayest teach them" to the children of Israel. The rod of Aaron was placed there to restrain the people from insubordination to the priesthood of Aaron; wherefore it is written (Num. 17:10): "Carry back the rod of Aaron into the tabernacle of the testimony, that it may be kept there for a token of the rebellious children of Israel." The manna was kept in the ark to remind them of the benefit conferred by God on the children of Israel in the desert; wherefore it is written (Ex. 16:32): "Fill a gomor of it, and let it be kept unto generations to come hereafter, that they may know the bread wherewith I fed you in the wilderness." The candlestick was set up to enhance the beauty of the temple, for the magnificence of a house depends on its being well lighted. Now the candlestick had seven branches, as Josephus observes (Antiquit. iii, 7, 8), to signify the seven planets, wherewith the whole world is illuminated. Hence the candlestick was placed towards the south; because for us the course of the planets is from that quarter. The altar of incense was instituted that there might always be in the tabernacle a sweet-smelling smoke; both through respect for the tabernacle, and as a remedy for the stenches arising from the shedding of blood and the slaying of animals. For men despise evil-smelling things as being vile, whereas sweet-smelling things are much appreciated. The table was placed there to signify that the priests who served the temple should take their food in the temple: wherefore, as stated in Matt. 12:4, it was lawful for none but the priests to eat the twelve loaves which were put on the table in memory of the twelve tribes. And the table was not placed in the middle directly in front of the propitiatory, in order to exclude an idolatrous rite: for the Gentiles, on the feasts of the moon, set up a table in front of the idol of the moon, wherefore it is written (Jer. 7:18): "The women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven."
In the court outside the tabernacle was the altar of holocausts, on which sacrifices of those things which the people possessed were offered to God: and consequently the people who offered these sacrifices to God by the hands of the priest could be present in the court. But the priests alone, whose function it was to offer the people to God, could approach the inner altar, whereon the very devotion and holiness of the people was offered to God. And this altar was put up outside the tabernacle and in the court, to the exclusion of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles placed altars inside the temples to offer up sacrifices thereon to idols.
The figurative reason for all these things may be taken from the relation of the tabernacle to Christ, who was foreshadowed therein. Now it must be observed that to show the imperfection of the figures of the Law, various figures were instituted in the temple to betoken Christ. For He was foreshadowed by the "propitiatory," since He is "a propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2). This propitiatory was fittingly carried by cherubim, since of Him it is written (Heb. 1:6): "Let all the angels of God adore Him." He is also signified by the ark: because just as the ark was made of setim-wood, so was Christ's body composed of most pure members. More over it was gilded: for Christ was full of wisdom and charity, which are betokened by gold. And in the ark was a golden pot, i.e. His holy soul, having manna, i.e. "all the fulness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9). Also there was a rod in the ark, i.e. His priestly power: for "He was made a . . . priest for ever" (Heb. 6:20). And therein were the tables of the Testament, to denote that Christ Himself is a lawgiver. Again, Christ was signified by the candlestick, for He said Himself (John 8:12): "I am the Light of the world"; while the seven lamps denoted the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. He is also betokened in the table, because He is our spiritual food, according to John 6:41, 51: "I am the living bread": and the twelve loaves signified the twelve apostles, or their teaching. Or again, the candlestick and table may signify the Church's teaching, and faith, which also enlightens and refreshes. Again, Christ is signified by the two altars of holocausts and incense. Because all works of virtue must be offered to us to God through Him; both those whereby we afflict the body, which are offered, as it were, on the altar of holocausts; and those which, with greater perfection of mind, are offered to God in Christ, by the spiritual desires of the perfect, on the altar of incense, as it were, according to Heb. 13:15: "By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God."
Reply Obj. 7: The Lord commanded an altar to be made for the offering of sacrifices and gifts, in honor of God, and for the upkeep of the ministers who served the tabernacle. Now concerning the construction of the altar the Lord issued a twofold precept. One was at the beginning of the Law (Ex. 20:24, seqq.) when the Lord commanded them to make "an altar of earth," or at least "not of hewn stones"; and again, not to make the altar high, so as to make it necessary to "go up" to it "by steps." This was in detestation of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles made their altars ornate and high, thinking that there was something holy and divine in such things. For this reason, too, the Lord commanded (Deut. 16:21): "Thou shalt plant no grove, nor any tree near the altar of the Lord thy God": since idolaters were wont to offer sacrifices beneath trees, on account of the pleasantness and shade afforded by them. There was also a figurative reason for these precepts. Because we must confess that in Christ, Who is our altar, there is the true nature of flesh, as regards His humanity--and this is to make an altar of earth; and again, in regard to His Godhead, we must confess His equality with the Father--and this is "not to go up" to the altar by steps. Moreover we should not couple the doctrine of Christ to that of the Gentiles, which provokes men to lewdness.
But when once the tabernacle had been constructed to the honor of God, there was no longer reason to fear these occasions of idolatry. Wherefore the Lord commanded the altar of holocausts to be made of brass, and to be conspicuous to all the people; and the altar of incense, which was visible to none but the priests. Nor was brass so precious as to give the people an occasion for idolatry.
Since, however, the reason for the precept, "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar" (Ex. 20:26) is stated to have been "lest thy nakedness be discovered," it should be observed that this too was instituted with the purpose of preventing idolatry, for in the feasts of Priapus the Gentiles uncovered their nakedness before the people. But later on the priests were prescribed the use of loin-cloths for the sake of decency: so that without any danger the altar could be placed so high that the priests when offering sacrifices would go up by steps of wood, not fixed but movable.
Reply Obj. 8: The body of the tabernacle consisted of boards placed on end, and covered on the inside with curtains of four different colors, viz. twisted linen, violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. These curtains, however, covered the sides only of the tabernacle; and the roof of the tabernacle was covered with violet-colored skins; and over this there was another covering of rams' skins dyed red; and over this there was a third curtain made of goats' hair, which covered not only the roof of the tabernacle, but also reached to the ground and covered the boards of the tabernacle on the outside. The literal reason of these coverings taken altogether was the adornment and protection of the tabernacle, that it might be an object of respect. Taken singly, according to some, the curtains denoted the starry heaven, which is adorned with various stars; the curtain (of goats' skin) signified the waters which are above the firmament; the skins dyed red denoted the empyrean heaven, where the angels are; the violet skins, the heaven of the Blessed Trinity.
The figurative meaning of these things is that the boards of which the tabernacle was constructed signify the faithful of Christ, who compose the Church. The boards were covered on the inner side by curtains of four colors: because the faithful are inwardly adorned with the four virtues: for "the twisted linen," as the gloss observes, "signifies the flesh refulgent with purity; violet signifies the mind desirous of heavenly things; purple denotes the flesh subject to passions; the twice dyed scarlet betokens the mind in the midst of the passions enlightened by the love of God and our neighbor." The coverings of the building designate prelates and doctors, who ought to be conspicuous for their heavenly manner of life, signified by the violet colored skins: and who should also be ready to suffer martyrdom, denoted by the skins dyed red; and austere of life and patient in adversity, betokened by the curtains of goats' hair, which were exposed to wind and rain, as the gloss observes.
Reply Obj. 9: The literal reason for the sanctification of the tabernacle and vessels was that they might be treated with greater reverence, being deputed, as it were, to the divine worship by this consecration. The figurative reason is that this sanctification signified the sanctification of the living tabernacle, i.e. the faithful of whom the Church of Christ is composed.
Reply Obj. 10: Under the Old Law there were seven temporal solemnities, and one continual solemnity, as may be gathered from Num. 28, 29. There was a continual feast, since the lamb was sacrificed every day, morning and evening: and this continual feast of an abiding sacrifice signified the perpetuity of Divine bliss. Of the temporal feasts the first was that which was repeated every week. This was the solemnity of the "Sabbath," celebrated in memory of the work of the creation of the universe. Another solemnity, viz. the "New Moon," was repeated every month, and was observed in memory of the work of the Divine government. For the things of this lower world owe their variety chiefly to the movement of the moon; wherefore this feast was kept at the new moon: and not at the full moon, to avoid the worship of idolaters who used to offer sacrifices to the moon at that particular time. And these two blessings are bestowed in common on the whole human race; and hence they were repeated more frequently.
The other five feasts were celebrated once a year: and they commemorated the benefits which had been conferred especially on that people. For there was the feast of the "Passover" in the first month to commemorate the blessing of being delivered out of Egypt. The feast of "Pentecost" was celebrated fifty days later, to recall the blessing of the giving of the Law. The other three feasts were kept in the seventh month, nearly the whole of which was solemnized by them, just as the seventh day. For on the first of the seventh month was the feast of "Trumpets," in memory of the delivery of Isaac, when Abraham found the ram caught by its horns, which they represented by the horns which they blew. The feast of Trumpets was a kind of invitation whereby they prepared themselves to keep the following feast which was kept on the tenth day. This was the feast of "Expiation," in memory of the blessing whereby, at the prayer of Moses, God forgave the people's sin of worshipping the calf. After this was the feast of "Scenopegia" or of "Tents," which was kept for seven days, to commemorate the blessing of being protected and led by God through the desert, where they lived in tents. Hence during this feast they had to take "the fruits of the fairest tree," i.e. the citron, "and the trees of dense foliage" [*Douay and A. V. and R. V. read: 'Boughs of thick trees'], i.e. the myrtle, which is fragrant, "and the branches of palm-trees, and willows of the brook," which retain their greenness a long time; and these are to be found in the Land of promise; to signify that God had brought them through the arid land of the wilderness to a land of delights. On the eighth day another feast was observed, of "Assembly and Congregation," on which the people collected the expenses necessary for the divine worship: and it signified the uniting of the people and the peace granted to them in the Land of promise.
The figurative reason for these feasts was that the continual sacrifice of the lamb foreshadowed the perpetuity of Christ, Who is the "Lamb of God," according to Heb. 13:8: "Jesus Christ yesterday and today, and the same for ever." The Sabbath signified the spiritual rest bestowed by Christ, as stated in Heb. 4. The Neomenia, which is the beginning of the new moon, signified the enlightening of the primitive Church by Christ's preaching and miracles. The feast of Pentecost signified the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles. The feast of Trumpets signified the preaching of the apostles. The feast of Expiation signified the cleansing of the Christian people from sins: and the feast of Tabernacles signified their pilgrimage in this world, wherein they walk by advancing in virtue. The feast of Assembly or Congregation foreshadowed the assembly of the faithful in the kingdom of heaven: wherefore this feast is described as "most holy" (Lev. 23:36). These three feasts followed immediately on one another, because those who expiate their vices should advance in virtue, until they come to see God, as stated in Ps. 83:8. ________________________
FIFTH
*S Part 3, Ques 8, Article 4
[II-II, Q. 8, Art. 4]
Whether the Gift of Understanding Is in All Who Are in a State of Grace?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gift of understanding is not in all who are in a state of grace. For Gregory says (Moral. ii, 49) that "the gift of understanding is given as a remedy against dulness of mind." Now many who are in a state of grace suffer from dulness of mind. Therefore the gift of understanding is not in all who are in a state of grace.
Obj. 2: Further, of all the things that are connected with knowledge, faith alone seems to be necessary for salvation, since by faith Christ dwells in our hearts, according to Eph. 3:17. Now the gift of understanding is not in everyone that has faith; indeed, those who have faith ought to pray that they may understand, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 27). Therefore the gift of understanding is not necessary for salvation: and, consequently, is not in all who are in a state of grace.
Obj. 3: Further, those things which are common to all who are in a state of grace, are never withdrawn from them. Now the grace of understanding and of the other gifts sometimes withdraws itself profitably, for, at times, "when the mind is puffed up with understanding sublime things, it becomes sluggish and dull in base and vile things," as Gregory observes (Moral. ii, 49). Therefore the gift of understanding is not in all who are in a state of grace.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 81:5): "They have not known or understood, they walk on in darkness." But no one who is in a state of grace walks in darkness, according to John 8:12: "He that followeth Me, walketh not in darkness." Therefore no one who is in a state of grace is without the gift of understanding.
_I answer that,_ In all who are in a state of grace, there must needs be rectitude of the will, since grace prepares man's will for good, according to Augustine (Contra Julian. Pelag. iv, 3). Now the will cannot be rightly directed to good, unless there be already some knowledge of the truth, since the object of the will is good understood, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 7. Again, just as the Holy Ghost directs man's will by the gift of charity, so as to move it directly to some supernatural good; so also, by the gift of understanding, He enlightens the human mind, so that it knows some supernatural truth, to which the right will needs to tend.
Therefore, just as the gift of charity is in all of those who have sanctifying grace, so also is the gift of understanding.
Reply Obj. 1: Some who have sanctifying grace may suffer dulness of mind with regard to things that are not necessary for salvation; but with regard to those that are necessary for salvation, they are sufficiently instructed by the Holy Ghost, according to 1 John 2:27: "His unction teacheth you of all things."
Reply Obj. 2: Although not all who have faith understand fully the things that are proposed to be believed, yet they understand that they ought to believe them, and that they ought nowise to deviate from them.
Reply Obj. 3: With regard to things necessary for salvation, the gift of understanding never withdraws from holy persons: but, in order that they may have no incentive to pride, it does withdraw sometimes with regard to other things, so that their mind is unable to penetrate all things clearly. _______________________
FIFTH
*S Part 3, Ques 84, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 84, Art. 3]
Whether Adoration Requires a Definite Place?
Objection 1: It would seem that adoration does not require a definite place. It is written (John 4:21): "The hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father"; and the same reason seems to apply to other places. Therefore a definite place is not necessary for adoration.
Obj. 2: Further, exterior adoration is directed to interior adoration. But interior adoration is shown to God as existing everywhere. Therefore exterior adoration does not require a definite place.
Obj. 3: Further, the same God is adored in the New as in the Old Testament. Now in the Old Testament they adored towards the west, because the door of the Tabernacle looked to the east (Ex. 26:18 seqq.). Therefore for the same reason we ought now to adore towards the west, if any definite place be requisite for adoration.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 56:7): "My house shall be called the house of prayer," which words are also quoted (John 2:16).
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), the chief part of adoration is the internal devotion of the mind, while the secondary part is something external pertaining to bodily signs. Now the mind internally apprehends God as not comprised in a place; while bodily signs must of necessity be in some definite place and position. Hence a definite place is required for adoration, not chiefly, as though it were essential thereto, but by reason of a certain fittingness, like other bodily signs.
Reply Obj. 1: By these words our Lord foretold the cessation of adoration, both according to the rite of the Jews who adored in Jerusalem, and according to the rite of the Samaritans who adored on Mount Garizim. For both these rites ceased with the advent of the spiritual truth of the Gospel, according to which "a sacrifice is offered to God in every place," as stated in Malach. 1:11.
Reply Obj. 2: A definite place is chosen for adoration, not on account of God Who is adored, as though He were enclosed in a place, but on account of the adorers; and this for three reasons. First, because the place is consecrated, so that those who pray there conceive a greater devotion and are more likely to be heard, as may be seen in the prayer of Solomon (3 Kings 8). Secondly, on account of the sacred mysteries and other signs of holiness contained therein. Thirdly, on account of the concourse of many adorers, by reason of which their prayer is more likely to be heard, according to Matt. 18:20, "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."
Reply Obj. 3: There is a certain fittingness in adoring towards the east. First, because the Divine majesty is indicated in the movement of the heavens which is from the east. Secondly, because Paradise was situated in the east according to the Septuagint version of Gen. 2:8, and so we signify our desire to return to Paradise. Thirdly, on account of Christ Who is "the light of the world" [*John 8:12; 9:5], and is called "the Orient" (Zech. 6:12); "Who mounteth above the heaven of heavens to the east" (Ps. 67:34), and is expected to come from the east, according to Matt. 24:27, "As lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." _______________________
*Lapide
. The Pharisees therefore, c. That is, is not worthy of credit. For no one is accepted as a witness in his own case, but must produce other witnesses (see above, v. 31). These were not the same Pharisees as those who had accused the adulteress, but others, who wished to avenge the disgrace of their fellows, and in their malevolence against Christ, brought this charge against Him, to put Him to shame. "Being nurtured in ignorance," says S. Cyril, "and not knowing Him to be Emmanuel, they suspected Him of aiming at His own glory, and attack Him, as though one of ourselves."*H Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go.
Ver. 14. Although I give testimony (or witness) of myself, my testimony is true. He gives them the reason, v. 16; because he is not alone, but the Father (who also beareth witness) is also with him. Wi.
*Lapide
. Jesus answered, c. Not only true in itself, but such as ought to be accepted and believed. This testimony of the Light is true, whether it show or hide Itself, says S. Augustine. The light itself needs no other witness. It shows itself clearly by its own light to be bright and shining. And thus is Christ the Light of the world, showing Itself to the world by Its miraculous works. Christ needed not any other witness, and yet He brings forward the highest and most indisputable witness, even God the Father. For I know whence I came, and whither I go. And therefore My testimony is true, as being confirmed by the testimony of God the Father, says the Gloss. This I know, but ye do not because ye will not know, though ye ought to know it both from My miracles and My words. But I know that I was sent from heaven, as the Messenger of the Father, being the Son of God, and Very God, from Very God. And when My ministry is over I shall return to Him again. So S. Augustine and Leontius. But He speaks obscurely, lest He should seem to boast, and for fear of kindling the more the anger of the Jews against Him. He might else have spoken more plainly. I am the Son of God, and therefore My testimony is true and legitimate, for the testimony of God, Who is the chief and irrefragable truth, is indisputable. "He wished the Father to be understood," says S. Augustine, "from Whom He departed not, when coming to us, as He left not us when He returned to heaven. But as the Sun shines on those that see and those that are blind, though the one sees and the other does not, so the wisdom of God is everywhere present, even to unbelievers, though they have not the eyes to behold Him," distinguishing thus His friends and enemies.*H You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.
Ver. 15. You judge, and also bear testimony concerning other men, according to the flesh, and according to outward shew and appearances only. I judge no one in this manner. And whatever judgment I pass, or if I give testimony, my testimony is true, as coming also from the Father, with whom I am one in nature, though a distinct person: and two, according to the law, are enough to give evidence. Wi. — You judge according to the flesh, &c. Because you do not understand the ways of God, and think you only see in me the person of man; therefore I seem to you to be arrogant, bearing witness of myself. Man indeed, who wishes alone to bear testimony of himself, is arrogant, and not to be believed, because all men are frail and liable to be deceived; but light and truth itself can neither deceive nor be deceived. S. Aug.
*Lapide
. Ye judge after the flesh. (1.) Ye judge of Me, not according to truth and equity, but from the carnal hatred ye have against Me; as living according to the flesh is to live ill, so judging according to the flesh is to judge unjustly. (2.) From My Body, which ye see, ye count Me a mere man; because I am in the flesh ye count Me mere flesh, judging wrongly. And thus ye rule that Truth can lie. For I am the Truth (S. Cyril). (3.) Ye judge by your senses alone, by that which ye see of Me; that I am a mean, poor, abject man, not the Messiah, not God who hides Himself in My flesh; and therefore ye condemn Me as a proud blasphemer for asserting Myself to be the Son of God. And this ye would not do, if ye judged of Me by reason and the spirit of truth. For this would declare to you that I am what I assert, Messiah, the Son of God. "They saw the man," says S. Augustine, "but did not believe Him to be God." And the Gloss, "they thought Him to be a man, who was not to be believed when praising Himself." "Moreover," says S. Cyril, "He acts like a physician who heeds not the insults of his patients who are mad, but applies to them the fitting remedies; fighting against disease, but not against the patient, whom he wishes to restore to health of body and mind." I judge no man, not as ye do, by outward appearance, but according to reason and the spirit. (4.) S. Chrysostom says, "Because the Jews might make this objection to Christ, 'If we judge wrongly of Thee, why dost not thou convince us?' Christ replies, I judge no one. It is not My business. Were I now to judge you, I should assuredly condemn you. But this is not the time for doing so." (5.) To judge in this place, means to perform a kind of judicial act, and hence it means to testify, or bear witness, for witnesses force as it were the judge to give sentence in accordance with their testimony. And hence a witness is a kind of judge (see Is. Lev 4 ). For the whole question between Christ and the Jews was with reference to His testimony, whether it could be lawfully accepted. And He maintains that it can be, as He was not alone, but the Father was with him (see S. Ambrose, Lib. v. Epist. 20). And this is plain from what Christ says, Joh 8:17-18 , "I am He that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me." But He uses the word "judge" because He seemed just before to have judged the adulteress, which the Pharisees resented. But He meant thereby that He had not judicially acquitted her, though He might have done so, as the Son of God. For I am not a mere man, as ye suppose, nor am I alone, for God the Father is with Me. And in this sense "I judge" is understood in its own proper sense, "I pass not a judicial sentence."*H And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Ver. 16. I am not alone. Christ does not here say that he is the Father and he is the Son, he only says that he is not alone, but that the Father is with him, plainly distinguishing the two Persons. The Father is truly the Father, and the Son truly the Son, not one elder or greater than the other, but both entirely equal in all perfections. One in substance, co-eternal, and of one perfect equality. S. Aug.
*Lapide
. And yet if I judge (i.e., bear witness of Myself) My judgment (i.e., witness) is true, i.e., fit to be taken in court, for I am not alone, c. S. Chrysostom explains, "If I judge, I should justly condemn you, because I should not judge by Myself, but I and the Father together." But the true meaning is that given in Joh 8:15 . I and the Father that sent Me. "For I took the form of a servant, but lost not the form of God," says S. Augustine; "Thy Incarnation was Thy mission." And the Interlinear Gloss, "Though I am a man, yet I left not the Father; though sent in the flesh, yet I and the Father are ever One by Our Godhead; the judgment of both and the will of both are alike One." As He says elsewhere, "I do nothing of Myself," for I have never proceeded to any punishment, which was not in the mind of the Father. "For whatever thoughts the nature of the Father entertains, the same are completed in Me also, for I shine forth from His bosom, and am the true offspring of His substance," says S. Cyril.* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 43, Article 1
[I, Q. 43, Art. 1]
Whether a Divine Person Can Be Properly Sent?
Objection 1: It would seem that a divine person cannot be properly sent. For one who is sent is less than the sender. But one divine person is not less than another. Therefore one person is not sent by another.
Obj. 2: Further, what is sent is separated from the sender; hence Jerome says, commenting on Ezech. 16:53: "What is joined and tied in one body cannot be sent." But in the divine persons there is nothing that is separable, as Hilary says (De Trin. vii). Therefore one person is not sent by another.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever is sent, departs from one place and comes anew into another. But this does not apply to a divine person, Who is everywhere. Therefore it is not suitable for a divine person to be sent.
_On the contrary,_ It is said (John 8:16): "I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me."
_I answer that,_ the notion of mission includes two things: the habitude of the one sent to the sender; and that of the one sent to the end whereto he is sent. Anyone being sent implies a certain kind of procession of the one sent from the sender: either according to command, as the master sends the servant; or according to counsel, as an adviser may be said to send the king to battle; or according to origin, as a tree sends forth its flowers. The habitude to the term to which he is sent is also shown, so that in some way he begins to be present there: either because in no way was he present before in the place whereto he is sent, or because he begins to be there in some way in which he was not there hitherto. Thus the mission of a divine person is a fitting thing, as meaning in one way the procession of origin from the sender, and as meaning a new way of existing in another; thus the Son is said to be sent by the Father into the world, inasmuch as He began to exist visibly in the world by taking our nature; whereas "He was" previously "in the world" (John 1:1).
Reply Obj. 1: Mission implies inferiority in the one sent, when it means procession from the sender as principle, by command or counsel; forasmuch as the one commanding is the greater, and the counsellor is the wiser. In God, however, it means only procession of origin, which is according to equality, as explained above (Q. 42, AA. 4, 6).
Reply Obj. 2: What is so sent as to begin to exist where previously it did not exist, is locally moved by being sent; hence it is necessarily separated locally from the sender. This, however, has no place in the mission of a divine person; for the divine person sent neither begins to exist where he did not previously exist, nor ceases to exist where He was. Hence such a mission takes place without a separation, having only distinction of origin.
Reply Obj. 3: This objection rests on the idea of mission according to local motion, which is not in God. _______________________
SECOND
* Footnotes
-
*
Deuteronomy
17:6
By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain. Let no man be put to death, when only one beareth witness against him.
-
*
Deuteronomy
19:15
One witness shall not rise up against any man, whatsoever the sin or wickedness be: but in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.
-
*
Matthew
18:16
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
-
*
2_Corinthians
13:1
Behold, this is the third time I am coming to you: In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand.
-
*
Hebrews
10:28
A man making void the law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses:
*Lapide
. It is also written in your Law (Deu 27:6 , Deu 19:5 ), that the testimony of two men is true : that is to be admitted by the judge, who can base on it a legal sentence, though the testimony may as a matter of fact be false. But a judge must go by the evidence; and so his sentences may be legally right, but in reality wrong. If then the testimony of two men be true, how much more must the sentence of two Divine Persons, the Father and the Son, be accepted as most true, most equitable, and most just? Christ applies this to His own case. For that the Father is with Him, and witnesses to Him, and that He is the Son of the Father, He had more than sufficiently proved, and therefore assumes it. "It is," says Augustine, "a grand and most mysterious question when God says in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established;' for Susanna was accused by two false witnesses, and all the people witnessed falsely against Christ. But in this way is the Trinity represented as in mystery; for therein is the ever-enduring firmness of truth. If thou wishest to have a good cause, have three witnesses, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 105, Article 2
[I-II, Q. 105, Art. 2]
Whether the Judicial Precepts Were Suitably Framed As to the Relations of One Man with Another?
Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts were not suitably framed as regards the relations of one man with another. Because men cannot live together in peace, if one man takes what belongs to another. But this seems to have been approved by the Law: since it is written (Deut. 23:24): "Going into thy neighbor's vineyard, thou mayest eat as many grapes as thou pleasest." Therefore the Old Law did not make suitable provisions for man's peace.
Obj. 2: Further, one of the chief causes of the downfall of states has been the holding of property by women, as the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 6). But this was introduced by the Old Law; for it is written (Num. 27:8): "When a man dieth without a son, his inheritance shall pass to his daughter." Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision for the welfare of the people.
Obj. 3: Further, it is most conducive to the preservation of human society that men may provide themselves with necessaries by buying and selling, as stated in _Polit._ i. But the Old Law took away the force of sales; since it prescribes that in the 50th year of the jubilee all that is sold shall return to the vendor (Lev. 25:28). Therefore in this matter the Law gave the people an unfitting command.
Obj. 4: Further, man's needs require that men should be ready to lend: which readiness ceases if the creditors do not return the pledges: hence it is written (Ecclus. 29:10): "Many have refused to lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded without cause." And yet this was encouraged by the Law. First, because it prescribed (Deut. 15:2): "He to whom any thing is owing from his friend or neighbor or brother, cannot demand it again, because it is the year of remission of the Lord"; and (Ex. 22:15) it is stated that if a borrowed animal should die while the owner is present, the borrower is not bound to make restitution. Secondly, because the security acquired through the pledge is lost: for it is written (Deut. 24:10): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor any thing that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge"; and again (Deut. 24:12, 13): "The pledge shall not lodge with thee that night, but thou shalt restore it to him presently." Therefore the Law made insufficient provision in the matter of loans.
Obj. 5: Further, considerable risk attaches to goods deposited with a fraudulent depositary: wherefore great caution should be observed in such matters: hence it is stated in 2 Mac. 3:15 that "the priests . . . called upon Him from heaven, Who made the law concerning things given to be kept, that He would preserve them safe, for them that had deposited them." But the precepts of the Old Law observed little caution in regard to deposits: since it is prescribed (Ex. 22:10, 11) that when goods deposited are lost, the owner is to stand by the oath of the depositary. Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision in this matter.
Obj. 6: Further, just as a workman offers his work for hire, so do men let houses and so forth. But there is no need for the tenant to pay his rent as soon as he takes a house. Therefore it seems an unnecessarily hard prescription (Lev. 19:13) that "the wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until morning."
Obj. 7: Further, since there is often pressing need for a judge, it should be easy to gain access to one. It was therefore unfitting that the Law (Deut. 17:8, 9) should command them to go to a fixed place to ask for judgment on doubtful matters.
Obj. 8: Further, it is possible that not only two, but three or more, should agree to tell a lie. Therefore it is unreasonably stated (Deut. 19:15) that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand."
Objection 9: Further, punishment should be fixed according to the gravity of the fault: for which reason also it is written (Deut. 25:2): "According to the measure of the sin, shall the measure also of the stripes be." Yet the Law fixed unequal punishments for certain faults: for it is written (Ex. 22:1) that the thief "shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Moreover, certain slight offenses are severely punished: thus (Num. 15:32, seqq.) a man is stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath day: and (Deut. 21:18, seqq.) the unruly son is commanded to be stoned on account of certain small transgressions, viz. because "he gave himself to revelling . . . and banquetings." Therefore the Law prescribed punishments in an unreasonable manner.
Objection 10: Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11), "Tully writes that the laws recognize eight forms of punishment, indemnity, prison, stripes, retaliation, public disgrace, exile, death, slavery." Now some of these were prescribed by the Law. "Indemnity," as when a thief was condemned to make restitution fivefold or fourfold. "Prison," as when (Num. 15:34) a certain man is ordered to be imprisoned. "Stripes"; thus (Deut. 25:2), "if they see that the offender be worthy of stripes; they shall lay him down, and shall cause him to be beaten before them." "Public disgrace" was brought on to him who refused to take to himself the wife of his deceased brother, for she took "off his shoe from his foot, and" did "spit in his face" (Deut. 25:9). It prescribed the "death" penalty, as is clear from (Lev. 20:9): "He that curseth his father, or mother, dying let him die." The Law also recognized the "lex talionis," by prescribing (Ex. 21:24): "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Therefore it seems unreasonable that the Law should not have inflicted the two other punishments, viz. "exile" and "slavery."
Objection 11: Further, no punishment is due except for a fault. But dumb animals cannot commit a fault. Therefore the Law is unreasonable in punishing them (Ex. 21:29): "If the ox . . . shall kill a man or a woman," it "shall be stoned": and (Lev. 20:16): "The woman that shall lie under any beast, shall be killed together with the same." Therefore it seems that matters pertaining to the relations of one man with another were unsuitably regulated by the Law.
Objection 12: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 21:12) a murderer to be punished with death. But the death of a dumb animal is reckoned of much less account than the slaying of a man. Hence murder cannot be sufficiently punished by the slaying of a dumb animal. Therefore it is unfittingly prescribed (Deut. 21:1, 4) that "when there shall be found . . . the corpse of a man slain, and it is not known who is guilty of the murder . . . the ancients" of the nearest city "shall take a heifer of the herd, that hath not drawn in the yoke, nor ploughed the ground, and they shall bring her into a rough and stony valley, that never was ploughed, nor sown; and there they shall strike off the head of the heifer."
_On the contrary,_ It is recalled as a special blessing (Ps. 147:20) that "He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and His judgments He hath not made manifest to them."
_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21), quoting Tully, "a nation is a body of men united together by consent to the law and by community of welfare." Consequently it is of the essence of a nation that the mutual relations of the citizens be ordered by just laws. Now the relations of one man with another are twofold: some are effected under the guidance of those in authority: others are effected by the will of private individuals. And since whatever is subject to the power of an individual can be disposed of according to his will, hence it is that the decision of matters between one man and another, and the punishment of evildoers, depend on the direction of those in authority, to whom men are subject. On the other hand, the power of private persons is exercised over the things they possess: and consequently their dealings with one another, as regards such things, depend on their own will, for instance in buying, selling, giving, and so forth. Now the Law provided sufficiently in respect of each of these relations between one man and another. For it established judges, as is clearly indicated in Deut. 16:18: "Thou shalt appoint judges and magistrates in all its [Vulg.: 'thy'] gates . . . that they may judge the people with just judgment." It is also directed the manner of pronouncing just judgments, according to Deut. 1:16, 17: "Judge that which is just, whether he be one of your own country or a stranger: there shall be no difference of persons." It also removed an occasion of pronouncing unjust judgment, by forbidding judges to accept bribes (Ex. 23:8; Deut. 16:19). It prescribed the number of witnesses, viz. two or three: and it appointed certain punishments to certain crimes, as we shall state farther on (ad 10).
But with regard to possessions, it is a very good thing, says the Philosopher (Polit. ii, 2) that the things possessed should be distinct, and the use thereof should be partly common, and partly granted to others by the will of the possessors. These three points were provided for by the Law. Because, in the first place, the possessions themselves were divided among individuals: for it is written (Num. 33:53, 54): "I have given you" the land "for a possession: and you shall divide it among you by lot." And since many states have been ruined through want of regulations in the matter of possessions, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 6); therefore the Law provided a threefold remedy against the irregularity of possessions. The first was that they should be divided equally, wherefore it is written (Num. 33:54): "To the more you shall give a larger part, and to the fewer, a lesser." A second remedy was that possessions could not be alienated for ever, but after a certain lapse of time should return to their former owner, so as to avoid confusion of possessions (cf. ad 3). The third remedy aimed at the removal of this confusion, and provided that the dead should be succeeded by their next of kin: in the first place, the son; secondly, the daughter; thirdly, the brother; fourthly, the father's brother; fifthly, any other next of kin. Furthermore, in order to preserve the distinction of property, the Law enacted that heiresses should marry within their own tribe, as recorded in Num. 36:6.
Secondly, the Law commanded that, in some respects, the use of things should belong to all in common. Firstly, as regards the care of them; for it was prescribed (Deut. 22:1-4): "Thou shalt not pass by, if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray; but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother," and in like manner as to other things. Secondly, as regards fruits. For all alike were allowed on entering a friend's vineyard to eat of the fruit, but not to take any away. And, specially, with respect to the poor, it was prescribed that the forgotten sheaves, and the bunches of grapes and fruit, should be left behind for them (Lev. 19:9; Deut. 24:19). Moreover, whatever grew in the seventh year was common property, as stated in Ex. 23:11 and Lev. 25:4.
Thirdly, the law recognized the transference of goods by the owner. There was a purely gratuitous transfer: thus it is written (Deut. 14:28, 29): "The third day thou shalt separate another tithe . . . and the Levite . . . and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow . . . shall come and shall eat and be filled." And there was a transfer for a consideration, for instance, by selling and buying, by letting out and hiring, by loan and also by deposit, concerning all of which we find that the Law made ample provision. Consequently it is clear that the Old Law provided sufficiently concerning the mutual relations of one man with another.
Reply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:8), "he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the Law": because, to wit, all the precepts of the Law, chiefly those concerning our neighbor, seem to aim at the end that men should love one another. Now it is an effect of love that men give their own goods to others: because, as stated in 1 John 3:17: "He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" Hence the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to give of their own to others readily: thus the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:18) commands the rich "to give easily and to communicate to others." Now a man does not give easily to others if he will not suffer another man to take some little thing from him without any great injury to him. And so the Law laid down that it should be lawful for a man, on entering his neighbor's vineyard, to eat of the fruit there: but not to carry any away, lest this should lead to the infliction of a grievous harm, and cause a disturbance of the peace: for among well-behaved people, the taking of a little does not disturb the peace; in fact, it rather strengthens friendship and accustoms men to give things to one another.
Reply Obj. 2: The Law did not prescribe that women should succeed to their father's estate except in default of male issue: failing which it was necessary that succession should be granted to the female line in order to comfort the father, who would have been sad to think that his estate would pass to strangers. Nevertheless the Law observed due caution in the matter, by providing that those women who succeeded to their father's estate, should marry within their own tribe, in order to avoid confusion of tribal possessions, as stated in Num. 36:7, 8.
Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 4), the regulation of possessions conduces much to the preservation of a state or nation. Consequently, as he himself observes, it was forbidden by the law in some of the heathen states, "that anyone should sell his possessions, except to avoid a manifest loss." For if possessions were to be sold indiscriminately, they might happen to come into the hands of a few: so that it might become necessary for a state or country to become void of inhabitants. Hence the Old Law, in order to remove this danger, ordered things in such a way that while provision was made for men's needs, by allowing the sale of possessions to avail for a certain period, at the same time the said danger was removed, by prescribing the return of those possessions after that period had elapsed. The reason for this law was to prevent confusion of possessions, and to ensure the continuance of a definite distinction among the tribes.
But as the town houses were not allotted to distinct estates, therefore the Law allowed them to be sold in perpetuity, like movable goods. Because the number of houses in a town was not fixed, whereas there was a fixed limit to the amount of estates, which could not be exceeded, while the number of houses in a town could be increased. On the other hand, houses situated not in a town, but "in a village that hath no walls," could not be sold in perpetuity: because such houses are built merely with a view to the cultivation and care of possessions; wherefore the Law rightly made the same prescription in regard to both (Lev. 25).
Reply Obj. 4: As stated above (ad 1), the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to its precepts, so as to be ready to come to one another's assistance: because this is a very great incentive to friendship. The Law granted these facilities for helping others in the matter not only of gratuitous and absolute donations, but also of mutual transfers: because the latter kind of succor is more frequent and benefits the greater number: and it granted facilities for this purpose in many ways. First of all by prescribing that men should be ready to lend, and that they should not be less inclined to do so as the year of remission drew nigh, as stated in Deut. 15:7, seqq. Secondly, by forbidding them to burden a man to whom they might grant a loan, either by exacting usury, or by accepting necessities of life in security; and by prescribing that when this had been done they should be restored at once. For it is written (Deut. 23:19): "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury": and (Deut. 24:6): "Thou shalt not take the nether nor the upper millstone to pledge; for he hath pledged his life to thee": and (Ex. 22:26): "If thou take of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset." Thirdly, by forbidding them to be importunate in exacting payment. Hence it is written (Ex. 22:25): "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner." For this reason, too, it is enacted (Deut. 24:10, 11): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor anything that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge, but thou shalt stand without, and he shall bring out to thee what he hath": both because a man's house is his surest refuge, wherefore it is offensive to a man to be set upon in his own house; and because the Law does not allow the creditor to take away whatever he likes in security, but rather permits the debtor to give what he needs least. Fourthly, the Law prescribed that debts should cease together after the lapse of seven years. For it was probable that those who could conveniently pay their debts, would do so before the seventh year, and would not defraud the lender without cause. But if they were altogether insolvent, there was the same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was for renewing the loan on account of their need.
As regards animals granted in loan, the Law enacted that if, through the neglect of the person to whom they were lent, they perished or deteriorated in his absence, he was bound to make restitution. But if they perished or deteriorated while he was present and taking proper care of them, he was not bound to make restitution, especially if they were hired for a consideration: because they might have died or deteriorated in the same way if they had remained in possession of the lender, so that if the animal had been saved through being lent, the lender would have gained something by the loan which would no longer have been gratuitous. And especially was this to be observed when animals were hired for a consideration: because then the owner received a certain price for the use of the animals; wherefore he had no right to any profit, by receiving indemnity for the animal, unless the person who had charge of it were negligent. In the case, however, of animals not hired for a consideration, equity demanded that he should receive something by way of restitution at least to the value of the hire of the animal that had perished or deteriorated.
Reply Obj. 5: The difference between a loan and a deposit is that a loan is in respect of goods transferred for the use of the person to whom they are transferred, whereas a deposit is for the benefit of the depositor. Hence in certain cases there was a stricter obligation of returning a loan than of restoring goods held in deposit. Because the latter might be lost in two ways. First, unavoidably: i.e. either through a natural cause, for instance if an animal held in deposit were to die or depreciate in value; or through an extrinsic cause, for instance, if it were taken by an enemy, or devoured by a beast (in which case, however, a man was bound to restore to the owner what was left of the animal thus slain): whereas in the other cases mentioned above, he was not bound to make restitution; but only to take an oath in order to clear himself of suspicion. Secondly, the goods deposited might be lost through an avoidable cause, for instance by theft: and then the depositary was bound to restitution on account of his neglect. But, as stated above (ad 4), he who held an animal on loan, was bound to restitution, even if he were absent when it depreciated or died: because he was held responsible for less negligence than a depositary, who was only held responsible in case of theft.
Reply Obj. 6: Workmen who offer their labor for hire, are poor men who toil for their daily bread: and therefore the Law commanded wisely that they should be paid at once, lest they should lack food. But they who offer other commodities for hire, are wont to be rich: nor are they in such need of their price in order to gain a livelihood: and consequently the comparison does not hold.
Reply Obj. 7: The purpose for which judges are appointed among men, is that they may decide doubtful points in matters of justice. Now a matter may be doubtful in two ways. First, among simple-minded people: and in order to remove doubts of this kind, it was prescribed (Deut. 16:18) that "judges and magistrates" should be appointed in each tribe, "to judge the people with just judgment." Secondly, a matter may be doubtful even among experts: and therefore, in order to remove doubts of this kind, the Law prescribed that all should foregather in some chief place chosen by God, where there would be both the high-priest, who would decide doubtful matters relating to the ceremonies of divine worship; and the chief judge of the people, who would decide matters relating to the judgments of men: just as even now cases are taken from a lower to a higher court either by appeal or by consultation. Hence it is written (Deut. 17:8, 9): "If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment . . . and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary; arise and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time." But such like doubtful matters did not often occur for judgment: wherefore the people were not burdened on this account.
Reply Obj. 8: In the business affairs of men, there is no such thing as demonstrative and infallible proof, and we must be content with a certain conjectural probability, such as that which an orator employs to persuade. Consequently, although it is quite possible for two or three witnesses to agree to a falsehood, yet it is neither easy nor probable that they succeed in so doing: wherefore their testimony is taken as being true, especially if they do not waver in giving it, or are not otherwise suspect. Moreover, in order that witnesses might not easily depart from the truth, the Law commanded that they should be most carefully examined, and that those who were found untruthful should be severely punished, as stated in Deut. 19:16, seqq.
There was, however, a reason for fixing on this particular number, in token of the unerring truth of the Divine Persons, Who are sometimes mentioned as two, because the Holy Ghost is the bond of the other two Persons; and sometimes as three: as Augustine observes on John 8:17: "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true."
Reply Obj. 9: A severe punishment is inflicted not only on account of the gravity of a fault, but also for other reasons. First, on account of the greatness of the sin, because a greater sin, other things being equal, deserves a greater punishment. Secondly, on account of a habitual sin, since men are not easily cured of habitual sin except by severe punishments. Thirdly, on account of a great desire for or a great pleasure in the sin: for men are not easily deterred from such sins unless they be severely punished. Fourthly, on account of the facility of committing a sin and of concealing it: for such like sins, when discovered, should be more severely punished in order to deter others from committing them.
Again, with regard to the greatness of a sin, four degrees may be observed, even in respect of one single deed. The first is when a sin is committed unwillingly; because then, if the sin be altogether involuntary, man is altogether excused from punishment; for it is written (Deut. 22:25, seqq.) that a damsel who suffers violence in a field is not guilty of death, because "she cried, and there was no man to help her." But if a man sinned in any way voluntarily, and yet through weakness, as for instance when a man sins from passion, the sin is diminished: and the punishment, according to true judgment, should be diminished also; unless perchance the common weal requires that the sin be severely punished in order to deter others from committing such sins, as stated above. The second degree is when a man sins through ignorance: and then he was held to be guilty to a certain extent, on account of his negligence in acquiring knowledge: yet he was not punished by the judges but expiated his sin by sacrifices. Hence it is written (Lev. 4:2): "The soul that sinneth through ignorance," etc. This is, however, to be taken as applying to ignorance of fact; and not to ignorance of the Divine precept, which all were bound to know. The third degree was when a man sinned from pride, i.e. through deliberate choice or malice: and then he was punished according to the greatness of the sin [*Cf. Deut. 25:2]. The fourth degree was when a man sinned from stubbornness or obstinacy: and then he was to be utterly cut off as a rebel and a destroyer of the commandment of the Law [*Cf. Num. 15:30, 31].
Accordingly we must say that, in appointing the punishment for theft, the Law considered what would be likely to happen most frequently (Ex. 22:1-9): wherefore, as regards theft of other things which can easily be safeguarded from a thief, the thief restored only twice their value. But sheep cannot be easily safeguarded from a thief, because they graze in the fields: wherefore it happened more frequently that sheep were stolen in the fields. Consequently the Law inflicted a heavier penalty, by ordering four sheep to be restored for the theft of one. As to cattle, they were yet more difficult to safeguard, because they are kept in the fields, and do not graze in flocks as sheep do; wherefore a yet more heavy penalty was inflicted in their regard, so that five oxen were to be restored for one ox. And this I say, unless perchance the animal itself were discovered in the thief's possession: because in that case he had to restore only twice the number, as in the case of other thefts: for there was reason to presume that he intended to restore the animal, since he kept it alive. Again, we might say, according to a gloss, that "a cow is useful in five ways: it may be used for sacrifice, for ploughing, for food, for milk, and its hide is employed for various purposes": and therefore for one cow five had to be restored. But the sheep was useful in four ways: "for sacrifice, for meat, for milk, and for its wool." The unruly son was slain, not because he ate and drank: but on account of his stubbornness and rebellion, which was always punished by death, as stated above. As to the man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker of the Law, which commanded the sabbath to be observed, to testify the belief in the newness of the world, as stated above (Q. 100, A. 5): wherefore he was slain as an unbeliever.
Reply Obj. 10: The Old Law inflicted the death penalty for the more grievous crimes, viz. for those which are committed against God, and for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents, adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things it inflicted punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows and mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation; and likewise for the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less degree it prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.
The punishment of slavery was prescribed by the Law in two cases. First, in the case of a slave who was unwilling to avail himself of the privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in the seventh year of remission: wherefore he was punished by remaining a slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not wherewith to make restitution, as stated in Ex. 22:3.
The punishment of absolute exile was not prescribed by the Law: because God was worshipped by that people alone, whereas all other nations were given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from that people absolutely, he would be in danger of falling into idolatry. For this reason it is related (1 Kings 26:19) that David said to Saul: "They are cursed in the sight of the Lord, who have cast me out this day, that I should not dwell in the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve strange gods." There was, however, a restricted sort of exile: for it is written in Deut. 19:4 [*Cf. Num. 35:25] that "he that striketh [Vulg.: 'killeth'] his neighbor ignorantly, and is proved to have had no hatred against him, shall flee to one of the cities" of refuge and "abide there until the death of the high-priest." For then it became lawful for him to return home, because when the whole people thus suffered a loss they forgot their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the slain were not so eager to kill the slayer.
Reply Obj. 11: Dumb animals were ordered to be slain, not on account of any fault of theirs; but as a punishment to their owners, who had not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the owner was more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday or the day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to avoid the danger) than if it had taken to butting suddenly.--Or again, the animal was slain in detestation of the sin; and lest men should be horrified at the sight thereof.
Reply Obj. 12: The literal reason for this commandment, as Rabbi Moses declares (Doct. Perplex. iii), was because the slayer was frequently from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf was a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought about in three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore that they had taken every measure for safeguarding the roads. Secondly, the owner of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of his beast, and if the murder was previously discovered, the beast was not slain. Thirdly, the place, where the heifer was slain, remained uncultivated. Wherefore, in order to avoid this twofold loss, the men of the city would readily make known the murderer, if they knew who he was: and it would seldom happen but that some word or sign would escape about the matter. Or again, this was done in order to frighten people, in detestation of murder. Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful animal and full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke, signified that whoever committed murder, however useful and strong he might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which was implied by the striking off of its head; and that the murderer, as vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men, which was betokened by the fact that the heifer after being slain was left to rot in a rough and uncultivated place.
Mystically, the heifer taken from the herd signifies the flesh of Christ; which had not drawn a yoke, since it had done no sin; nor did it plough the ground, i.e. it never knew the stain of revolt. The fact of the heifer being killed in an uncultivated valley signified the despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and the devil is shown to be the arch-murderer. ________________________
THIRD
*S Part 3, Ques 70, Article 2
[II-II, Q. 70, Art. 2]
Whether the Evidence of Two or Three Persons Suffices?
Objection 1: It would seem that the evidence of two or three persons is not sufficient. For judgment requires certitude. Now certitude of the truth is not obtained by the assertions of two or three witnesses, for we read that Naboth was unjustly condemned on the evidence of two witnesses (3 Kings 21). Therefore the evidence of two or three witnesses does not suffice.
Obj. 2: Further, in order for evidence to be credible it must agree. But frequently the evidence of two or three disagrees in some point. Therefore it is of no use for proving the truth in court.
Obj. 3: Further, it is laid down (Decret. II, qu. iv, can. Praesul.): "A bishop shall not be condemned save on the evidence of seventy-two witnesses; nor a cardinal priest of the Roman Church, unless there be sixty-four witnesses. Nor a cardinal deacon of the Roman Church, unless there be twenty-seven witnesses; nor a subdeacon, an acolyte, an exorcist, a reader or a doorkeeper without seven witnesses." Now the sin of one who is of higher dignity is more grievous, and consequently should be treated more severely. Therefore neither is the evidence of two or three witnesses sufficient for the condemnation of other persons.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 17:6): "By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain," and further on (Deut. 19:15): "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand."
_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 3), "we must not expect to find certitude equally in every matter." For in human acts, on which judgments are passed and evidence required, it is impossible to have demonstrative certitude, because they are about things contingent and variable. Hence the certitude of probability suffices, such as may reach the truth in the greater number of cases, although it fail in the minority. Now it is probable that the assertion of several witnesses contains the truth rather than the assertion of one: and since the accused is the only one who denies, while several witness affirm the same as the prosecutor, it is reasonably established both by Divine and by human law, that the assertion of several witnesses should be upheld. Now all multitude is comprised of three elements, the beginning, the middle and the end. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher (De Coelo i, 1), "we reckon 'all' and 'whole' to consist of three parts." Now we have a triple voucher when two agree with the prosecutor: hence two witnesses are required; or for the sake of greater certitude three, which is the perfect number. Wherefore it is written (Eccles. 4:12): "A threefold cord is not easily broken": and Augustine, commenting on John 8:17, "The testimony of two men is true," says (Tract. xxxvi) that "there is here a mystery by which we are given to understand that Trinity wherein is perpetual stability of truth."
Reply Obj. 1: No matter how great a number of witnesses may be determined, the evidence might sometimes be unjust, since is written (Ex. 23:2): "Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil." And yet the fact that in so many it is not possible to have certitude without fear of error, is no reason why we should reject the certitude which can probably be had through two or three witnesses, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: If the witnesses disagree in certain principal circumstances which change the substance of the fact, for instance in time, place, or persons, which are chiefly in question, their evidence is of no weight, because if they disagree in such things, each one would seem to be giving distinct evidence and to be speaking of different facts. For instance, one say that a certain thing happened at such and such a time or place, while another says it happened at another time or place, they seem not to be speaking of the same event. The evidence is not weakened if one witness says that he does not remember, while the other attests to a determinate time or place. And if on such points as these the witness for prosecution and defense disagree altogether, and if they be equal in number on either side, and of equal standing, the accused should have the benefit of the doubt, because the judge ought to be more inclined to acquit than to condemn, except perhaps in favorable suits, such as a pleading for liberty and the like. If, however, the witnesses for the same side disagree, the judge ought to use his own discretion in discerning which side to favor, by considering either the number of witnesses, or their standing, or the favorableness of the suit, or the nature of the business and of the evidence.
Much more ought the evidence of one witness to be rejected if he contradict himself when questioned about what he has seen and about what he knows; not, however, if he contradict himself when questioned about matters of opinion and report, since he may be moved to answer differently according to the different things he has seen and heard.
On the other hand if there be discrepancy of evidence in circumstances not touching the substance of the fact, for instance, whether the weather were cloudy or fine, whether the house were painted or not, or such like matters, such discrepancy does not weaken the evidence, because men are not wont to take much notice of such things, wherefore they easily forget them. Indeed, a discrepancy of this kind renders the evidence more credible, as Chrysostom states (Hom. i in Matth.), because if the witnesses agreed in every point, even in the minutest of details, they would seem to have conspired together to say the same thing: but this must be left to the prudent discernment of the judge.
Reply Obj. 3: This passage refers specially to the bishops, priests, deacons and clerics of the Roman Church, on account of its dignity: and this for three reasons. First because in that Church those men ought to be promoted whose sanctity makes their evidence of more weight than that of many witnesses. Secondly, because those who have to judge other men, often have many opponents on account of their justice, wherefore those who give evidence against them should not be believed indiscriminately, unless they be very numerous. Thirdly, because the condemnation of any one of them would detract in public opinion from the dignity and authority of that Church, a result which would be more fraught with danger than if one were to tolerate a sinner in that same Church, unless he were very notorious and manifest, so that a grave scandal would arise if he were tolerated. _______________________
THIRD
*Lapide
. I am one that bear witness of Myself, c. But thou wilt say, no one's testimony is accepted in his own case, and therefore Christ's testimony to Himself ought not to be accepted. But the answer is, that Christ as God witnesses to Himself as man. But God and man are two beings, and in Christ God was different from man: in nature, I mean, not in person. And from this very passage the Fathers gather against both Nestorians and Eutycheans, that in Christ there was one Person, the Divine, but two natures, the Divine and the human. So Cyril, Chrysostom, and S. Ambrose ( de Fide v. 2). Besides this, God the Father and God the Son bore witness that Jesus was the Christ by the miracles which they wrought both through Him and for Him ( Joh 5:31-32 ). And especially when the Father spake in thunder out of heaven, This is My beloved Son. So Bede.*H They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father. If you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.
Ver. 19. Where is thy Father? They knew well enough by other discourses, that he had called and declared God to be his Father; but they had a mind to make him own it again, that they might accuse him as guilty of blasphemy. — Neither me do you know, nor my Father: you will not own me to have been always his Son, nor him to have been always my Father, but did you know me to be his Son, always proceeding from him, you would know my Father also, and know him as my Father from all eternity. Wi. — As in common conversation we often say, "when you have seen one, you have seen the other;" when two persons or things seem perfectly alike as to outward appearances, so here Christ says, If you did know me, you would know my Father also: not that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Father, but because the Father is like the Son. S. Aug. — Here might the Arians, and all who maintain that Christ is a mere creature, blush; for if he were a creature, how can any one who knows him likewise know God? Therefore is Christ consubstantial with the Father, for he who knows the Son, knows the Father also. Theophyl.
*Lapide
. Then said they unto Him, Where is Thy Father? They said this, in order to elicit from Him a clear statement that God was His Father, in order to accuse Him of blasphemy, as they did, Joh 5:18 , Joh 19:7 . So Chrysostom and others. But Cyril and Leontius less probably think that the Pharisees spoke contemptuously and sarcastically, as if He were the Son of some unknown father. S. Augustine and Bede think that they referred to Joseph, as being His father in the flesh. But the first is the best meaning. Jesus answered, c. Christ did not wish to answer clearly and directly, "My Father is in heaven," because He knew that the question was put in order to ensnare Him. He therefore, though answering their question directly, yet spoke so guardedly that the Pharisees could not bring any charge against Him. As if He said, Ye think that I am a man, and that I have only an earthly father. But ye are wrong, for ye know not that I am God as well as man. And therefore ye understand not that I have no other Father than God in heaven, though I have proved this by so many miracles. But how does this agree with what Christ said ( Joh 7:28 ), Ye both know Me, and know whence I am ? I answer, Christ then spoke of Himself as man, but here He speaks of Himself as God. Origen adds that then Christ spoke to the people of Jerusalem who knew Him, but here to the Pharisees who knew Him not, and were moreover His enemies. The word "if" is here equivalent to assuredly. See Leontius. As Christ says to Philip (xiv. 9), He that seeth Me seeth My Father also. S. Augustine explains it somewhat differently; "Ye ask, who is My Father, because ye know Me not, for ye think not that I am God eternal in heaven." (2.) Cyril speaks more profoundly and to the point. "The names of Father and Son imply each other," Christ therefore is the gate (as it were) leading to the Father. "Let us learn then," he adds, "what He is by nature, and then we shall rightly understand as in an express image the Antitype Itself." For the Father is manifested in the Son, as in a mirror, in the proper nature of His offspring. (See Wisdom vii. 26 and Heb. i 3.) Origen considers that "know" means to "love." If ye loved Me ye would surely love My Father. For evil livers practically know not God, as is said of Eli's sons.*Lapide
. These words, c. . . . in the temple ( i.e., the Court of the Temple). Rupertus thinks that the reason why no man laid hands on Him was because the treasury was a remote spot, frequented only by the Priests who wished to take money out, and the lay people who wished to pay it in. But it was in fact a public and much-frequented place, being a large portico close to the court of the temple, and in it were preserved all the treasures of the temple. Christ then spake all these things openly and boldly in a place where He could easily have been taken. But He by His Divine power restrained their hands and their resolve, because the destined hour had not yet come. Adrichoniuus ( Descript. Hieros. 103) describes the treasury as a chest wherein all requisites were kept for the sacrifices, the support of the p or, repair of the temple, c. When Heliodorus attempted to plunder it, he was said to have been scourged by angels, and Pilate was prevented by a popular tumult from applying its contents to bringing water into the city. It was afterwards plundered by the Romans. Here also the poor woman cast in her two mites. It was from this chest that the whole porch where it stood was called the treasury. The other reason why Christ spoke thus in the treasury was of a more hidden kind. Because it was the dark hiding-place of the Pharisees, where they wrought all those evil devices which Christ recounts, Mat 5 . and 23. In this very spot He condemns their dark deeds by saying, "I am the Light of the world," the true Light of wisdom and holiness, who teach men to despise earthly riches, as mean and perishing, and to aim at heavenly riches, as being great and eternal. Follow not the Pharisees who are blindly intent on these earthly riches, for Vespasian will speedily carry them all away; but rather follow Me, the Light of the world, for I preach to you poverty of spirit as the way to gain boundless riches in heaven. And on the other hand, "Woe to you rich," c. ( Luk 6:24 ). This then was the cause of the intense hatred they felt against Christ, which led them to persecute Him even to death on the cross. It was out of this treasury that they sacrilegiously took the thirty pieces of silver which they gave to Judas to betray Jesus. And therefore in the very same spot He willed that He would by that means be lifted up on the cross, and draw all men unto Him. Origen gives a mystical reason. "Christ," he says, "spake these things in the treasury, because the treasury, or rather the treasures, are His divine discourses, impressed with the image of the great King. Coins (he says) are divine words. Let every one then contribute to the treasury, i.e. , for the edification of the Church, whatever he is able for the honour of God, and the common benefit." And Bede, "Christ speaks in the treasury, because He spake to the Jews in parables which were covered and kept close. But the treasury then began (as it were) to be opened, when He explained them to His disciples, and unlocked the heavenly mysteries therein conceived." For His hour was not yet come. "Not the fated, but the opportune and self-chosen hour," says the Interlinear Gloss. "Some," says S. Augustine, "on hearing this, believe that Christ was subject to fate. But how can He be under fate, by whom the heaven and the stars were made, when Thy will, if Thou thinkest aught, transcends even the stars? The hour therefore had not come, not 'the hour in which He should he forced to die, but in which He deigned to be slain.'"*H Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go: and you shall seek me. And you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.
Ver. 21. I go my way, and you shall seek me, &c. See the foregoing chapter, v. 34. Wi.
*Lapide
. Jesus therefore said to them again. (1.) Some think that "therefore" only indicates the beginning of a new discourse. (2.) Origen thinks it indicates that what follows was spoken by Christ at the same time and place. (3.) Maldonatus refers it to verse 19, Ye neither know Me nor My Father. The time therefore will come for you to know Me as God, but ye will not find Me, for ye will die in your sins. (4.) Rupertus and Toletus refer it more appositely, to the words immediately preceding. Because He saw that the Pharisees understood, and were angered at His words, He adds, I go My way, c. He had said the same before ( Joh 7:33 ), first to the officers, and then to the Pharisees. I go My way, that is out of this life to My Father by My cross and death. "Death was to Christ," says S. Augustine, "a going forth, for He abode not in the world, but passed through it to heaven and immortal life." And ye shall seek Me, i.e ., ye shall seek another Messiah, and will not find him, says Toletus, for there is none other but Me. More simply. Ye shall seek Me, to crucify Me again (see vii 34). So Origen and S. Augustine, who says, "Ye shall seek Me, not from desire but from hatred." For after He had withdrawn from sight, they who hated and they who loved Him alike sought Him, the one to persecute, and the other from desire to hear Him. For He adds, And ye shall die in your sins. Your obstinate sins of unbelief and hatred. Ye will therefore seek Me in vain, for I shall ascend to heaven, ye will be thrust down to hell. Euthymius explains "in your sin," in consequence of your sin, for which ye will be slain by the Romans. But the first explanation is the plainest and most forcible. For Christ frequently alarms the Pharisees with the terrors of the last judgment. Whither I go ye cannot come. Ye cannot, because ye will not, says Origen, for every sin is a voluntary and free act. S. Augustine thinks that these words were spoken to the disciples, "Whither I go ye cannot go now," not depriving them of hope, but predicting its postponement. But the words which follow were evidently addressed to the Pharisees.*Lapide
. Then said the Jews, c. The officers made a wiser inquiry ( Joh 7:35 ), Will He go to the dispersion of the Gentiles? But the Pharisees, blinded by their hatred, thought He had no way of escape but by killing Himself. Wherever He may go, we will follow Him up. If He goes to the Gentiles, we will drag Him back. He must therefore mean that He will kill Himself, so as to escape our hands. A presumptuous and foolish thought, suggested, however, by their malice. He might have withdrawn Himself from them in various ways, as He had already done. But He meant that He would go up to heaven, whither the Pharisees could not come. But His words, says S. Augustine, referred not to His going to death, but to where He was going afterwards.*H And he said to them: You are from beneath: I am from above. You are of this world: I am not of this world.
Ver. 23. I am not of this world: he speaks of his divine person, as the words evidently shew. Wi.
*Lapide
. And (therefore) He said unto them, c. Ye cleave to your sins and will go to the lowest depth, while I shall return to heaven, and therefore ye will seek Me and will not find Me. For I am like the soaring eagle, dwelling in the loftiest mountains of eternity, while ye are as worms and insects creeping on the earth. So Rupertus and S. Augustine, who says, "Ye are from beneath; ye savour of the earth; serpent-like, ye eat the earth. But what is meant by eating the earth? Ye feed on things of earth, ye delight in things of earth, are greedy for things of earth, ye lift not up your hearts above." S. Chrysostom and others, and S. Augustine and Bede among the Latins, think that the Pharisees misunderstood the words of Christ by reason of their earthly minds. Morally: Ye are from beneath, as descended from Adam, and deriving from him your earthly desires, and inflamed by evil passions, thus hankering only after worldly things. But I am from above, because as God I am begotten of the Father, and as man am incarnate of the Holy Spirit. And therefore My feelings, My love, My desires are all heavenly. And to these ye cannot attain, unless ye are born again; and thus from earthly become heavenly and spiritual, as I said to Nicodemus. Physically: Christ here teaches us that our birth-place, training, c., impart to each one their qualities. And just as fishes could not live out of water, nor birds excepting in the air, so the Pharisees, born in Canaan or Judæa, could not but be earthly both in body and mind, as Ezekiel said (Eze 16:3 ), "Thy birth was of the land of Canaan, and thy mother a Hittite." But Christ, as born and dwelling in heaven, was heavenly Metaphysically: Ye are of your father the devil, because as he killed Adam by the forbidden fruit, so do ye wish to kill Me. But I am from above, as being the Son of the Most High God. Hear S. Augustine ( Tract xxxvii.): " He was from above. But how was He from above? From the air? By no means. For there the birds do fly. From the heaven we see? By no means. For there the sun, the moon, and stars go their rounds. From the angels? Do not imagine it, for they too were made by Him, by Whom all things were made. How then was He from above? From the Father Himself. For there is nothing above Him, who begat the Word equal to Himself, co-eternal with Himself, His only Begotten before time, by Whom He would create the times. Understand, therefore, this word 'from above,' as transcending in Thy conception everything that was made, the whole creation, every body, every created spirit, everything that is in any way subject to change." Ye are of this world, I am not of this world : ye are of this earth, or more closely to the point, ye are worldly. Ye aim at worldly favours, wealth, and honours. Ye live as do worldlings. Ye possess the very qualities of the world, says Toletus. Listen to S. Augustine ( Tract. xxxviii.): "Let no one say, I am not of the world; whosoever thou be, O man, thou art of the world. But He who made the world hath come to thee, and hath freed thee from the world. But if the world delight thee, thou wishest for ever to be unclean; but if this world no longer delight thee, thou art clean. But if through some infirmity the world still delights thee, let Him who cleanseth dwell in thee, and thou shalt be clean; but if thou art clean thou wilt not abide in the world, nor hear that which the Jews heard said, 'Ye shall die in your sins.'"*Lapide
. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins. The sin of unbelief, and all your other sins, for there is no forgiveness of sin, save through faith in Christ, whom ye reject. For if ye believe not that I am the Saviour of the world, as I constantly affirm and prove also by so many miracles. So Lyra. But S. Augustine, Bede, and Toletus more ingeniously: "Because I am that I am ; i.e ., God." But Rupertus thus subtilly: "Because I am from above." Ye shall die in your sins, because there is no one but Myself, whom ye despise, who can pardon and take away sin.*H They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.
Ver. 25. Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, [3] who also speak to you. This text and the construction of it is obscure, both in the Latin and in the Greek. S. Aug. and some of the Latin Fathers, expound it in this manner: I am the beginning of all things, who now being made man, speak to you. But this does not seem the construction, if we consult the Greek text; (where the beginning is not in the nominative, but in the accusative case) and therefore S. Aug. having considered more attentively the Greek, thinks that something must be understood, as believe me to be the beginning: he looks upon this to be the sense and the construction, as being connected with what was said two verses before; to wit, if you believe not that I am he, the true Messias, you shall die in your sins. "That they might," says S. Aug. (tract. 38, num. 11, p. 560) "know what they were to believe," he made them this answer, as if he had said: believe me to be the beginning, the cause, the author of all things, who am now become man, and speak to you. Other later interpreters are of opinion that the beginning is here a Grecism, and signifies that same as at first, or from the beginning. The sense therefore and construction may be, I am, what I said and told you at first, and from the beginning; that is, I am your Messias, the true Son of God, sent into the world, &c. Wi. — The Pharisees, indignant at the liberty with which Jesus spoke to them, demand of him in a rage, Who art thou, to speak to us in this imperious manner, to say that we shall die in our sins? Jesus answered them, that he was the Beginning, Author, Creator, and Ruler of all things. This is the more orthodox and more becoming interpretation. Or, I am, in the first place, what I have already told you; viz. (v. 12.) I am the light of the world; he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Or, it may mean, I am what I have always from the beginning told you. I am the Son of God, the Messias, &c. Calmet.
*Lapide
. They said therefore to Him, Who art Thou? Because they did not understand, or pretended they did not, they appositely ask , Who art Thou? Jesus said to them, the Beginning (Vulg.), I who am speaking to you. S. Augustine, Bede, Rupertus, and S. Ambrose ( De Fide, iii. 4), consider the word, the Beginning, to be in the nominative case, explaining it, I am the Beginning, the First and the Last, or the Beginning of all things, for all things were made by the Word of God. In the Greek the word is not α̉ζχὴ , but, α̉ζχὴν , in the beginning. S. Augustine and S. Ambrose explain it (2.) by supplying the word "credite" which is not in the text. We must therefore consider it to be a Greek form of expression, α̉ζχὴν for κα̉τ α̉ζχὴν , in the beginning. I am from the beginning, i.e. from eternity ( before Abraham, as He said Himself, verse 58), Very God of Very God. And therefore I am the beginning of time, and age, and of all things. And yet I am speaking to you; that is, it is I who announce this to you, for I assumed flesh, and was made man in order to announce it, and save those who believe in it. I am from the beginning, which very thing I solemnly declare to you. Or rather, since I am the Word, which the Father spake from all eternity, I having been made man to announce to you the same truth. For the Son is the Word by whom the Father speaks, and the Son is also the Word which speaks to us. The word "beginning," therefore, is more appropriate to the Son than to the Holy Spirit, for the Son is together with the Father the source ( principium ) of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is not the source of any other Divine Person, but only of creatures; and further, because He is the beginning ( principium ) proceeding from the beginning, that is to say, from the Father. And accordingly this word signifies His origin, as being begotten of the Father. This is clear from what is said below, verse 27. The Vulgate does not translate it literally from the beginning, but the beginning, signifying thereby the Eternal Word, which was from the beginning, and begotten of the Father, to be with the Father, the beginning both of the Holy Spirit and of all creatures. From the beginning signifies two things; first from all eternity, and next as begotten of God the Father. It is the same thing to say I am from the beginning, or I am the beginning. (See John i. 1; Rev. i. 8, iii. 14; and also Col. i. 18.) And this is what SS. Augustine, Ambrose, and others above mentioned consider it to mean. So says the Gloss, "The Father is the Beginning, but not from the beginning: the Son is the Beginning, from the Beginning, that is, from the Father, who worketh all things by the Son, for He is the Right Hand, Strength, Wisdom, and Word of the Father." But the Greek α̉ζχὴ means also the Chief Rule ( principatus ), meaning that to Christ belongs the dominion and rule over all things. (See Psa 110:3 , Vulg., and Pro 8:22 , sec. lxx. See also S. Augustine, contra Max. cap. xviii., and S. Thomas, part 1, Quest. xxxvi., art. 4, who show that the Father and Son are not two, but the one principle of the Holy Spirit .) Morally: learn that Christ, as God and man, must be regarded as the beginning and the end of all our doings; after the example of S. Paul and the other Apostles both in the beginning and end of their Epistles. S. Gregory Nazianzen begins his acrostics in this way, and Paulinus, "In Thee my only hopes of life depend, Thou my beginning, Thou my goal and end." As all numbers start from unity, and all lines run from the centre to the circumference, so should all the actions of a Christian begin and end in Christ (see Col 3:1-17 ). Nonnus and others explain, I am the same as I said to you at first; that is, that I am the Messiah, the Light and the Salvation of the world, but ye believe Me not. But this is a strange interpretation. Some others refer to what comes afterwards, Because ye do not believe Me, I have more to say to you,, And to judge of you. But this is a mere evading of the question. As if Christ said, Ye are unworthy of an answer, but yet deserve My condemnation.* Footnotes
-
*
Romans
3:4
But God is true and every man a liar, as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words and mayest overcome when thou art judged.
*H Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.
Ver. 26. And the things I have heard from him, &c. For Christ, to hear from his Father, to see, &c. is the same as to proceed from him, to be of the same nature and substance. See c. v, v. 19. Wi.
*Lapide
. I have many things, c. I have many things to say against you, and to accuse you of. And in the day of judgment I will do so. As S. Cyril says, "I will accuse you not of one thing but of many, and of nothing falsely. For I can condemn you as unbelieving, as arrogant, as insulting, as opposers of God, as impudent, as ungrateful, as malignant, as lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as courting the praise of men, and not seeking the glory of God." But He that sent Me, c. I will omit many points and will merely say this, in refutation of your unbelief, that the Father who hath sent Me is true, and whatever therefore I say is true, and worthy of belief by all. "I am true" (says S. Augustine) "in judgment, because I am the Son of Truth, and the Truth Itself." But others explain differently, (1.) Toletus: "I have many things to say against you. But I will not do so now, for the Father sent Me into the world, not to judge but to save it, and therefore, in obedience to Him, I say only those things which concern its salvation." (2.) Maldonatus, as though it were, " Because " He that hath sent Me is true, not " but " He that sent Me, c. (3.) Rupertus refers it to what He had said before, that He was the Beginning, "These are not My own words, but what the Father bade Me say of Myself." (4.) Ye do not believe in Me as the Messiah, but this is what the Father wishes Me to proclaim. (5.) Ye do not believe Me now, but My Father is true. He will fulfil His own word that I shall be your judge, and reward you according to your deeds. But the first meaning is the best. Which I have heard of Him, both as God and as man. The Interlinear Gloss says, "To hear from Him, is the same as though being from Him." "The co-equal Son gives glory to the Father, why then dost thou set thyself against Him, being only His servant?" So S. Augustine.*H And they understood not that he called God his Father.
Ver. 27. Now they, &c. Some of the more ignorant among the Jews understood not Christ when he clearly enough signified that he was equal to God, and of one and the same nature; but at other times they that heard him, perceived it very well; and so, in this place, they were for stoning him to death. Wi.
*Lapide
. They knew not, c. For Jesus spake covertly and obscurely, for fear of exciting the hatred of the Pharisees. But some of the more acute of them began to suspect the true meaning of His words, though they did not clearly understand them, and could not refute Him. None of them fully knew it. And God so ordered it, that the Passion of Christ, and the consequent redemption of the world, might not be hindered. (See 1 Cor. ii. 8.) "I withhold the knowledge of Myself," says S. Augustine, "that My Passion may be effected" by your hands.*H Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up, the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he and that I do nothing of myself. But as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.
Ver. 28. When you shall have lifted up, &c. That is, have put me to the death of the cross; (see John iii. 14. and xii. 32.) you, that is, many of you, shall know, and believe in me, as your Messias. Wi.
*Lapide
. Then said Jesus, c. When ye have lifted Me up on the Cross. He calls it His exaltation, for though it seemed to be His greatest degradation and disgrace, yet it was made to be, by God's Providence, His greatest exaltation and glory, that all nations should adore Christ crucified, and hope for pardon from Him. For this Christ won for Himself by His great humility (see Phi 2:8 seq.). And thus does God deal with every follower of Christ who humbles himself for Christ's sake, as He says, "Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled," c. Then shall you know that I am Messiah, the Son of God, whom I declare Myself to be, and not a mere man, as ye now think Me. For many of the Jews, when they saw in the Cross, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, such patience, charity, zeal, and such great prodigies and miracles, were moved with compunction to believe in Him. Christ had obtained all this by His Cross, and obtained it from His Father (see Act 2:41 ). As S. Augustine says, "He saw that many would believe after His Passion. And this He says that no one who is conscious of guilt should despair, when even His own murder was condoned." See S. Cyril, and others. I do nothing of Myself, c. Christ frequently inculcates the same truth, both in order to speak humbly of Himself, and to gain authority for His doctrine from God the Father. "But the Father," says S. Augustine, "did not so teach the Son, as though He were ignorant when He begat Him; but His teaching Him, was His begetting Him full of knowledge." For with the Son His being is His knowledge. And therefore the Father by begetting gave Him both existence and knowledge.*Lapide
. And He that sent Me is with Me. He adds this (says S. Chrysostom) lest He should be accounted inferior to the Father who taught Him. The one relates to the Incarnation ( dispensationem ), the other to the Godhead. "The Father," says S. Augustine, "sent the Son, but did not leave Him." Moreover, the Father is ever with the Son, not only by the inseparable essence of Deity, which continues ever in number the same, but also by the special providence and guidance vouchsafed to the manhood which He assumed, the Godhead guiding and directing it in every work, to make all His work perfect and divine.* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 20, Article 1
[III, Q. 20, Art. 1]
Whether We May Say That Christ Is Subject to the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that we may not say that Christ was subject to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a creature, since, as is said in _De Eccles. Dogm._ iv, "in the Trinity there is no dependence or subjection." But we cannot say simply that Christ is a creature, as was stated above (Q. 16, A. 8). Therefore we cannot say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father.
Obj. 2: Further, a thing is said to be subject to God when it is subservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience to the human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "We must bear in mind that we may not call it" (i.e. Christ's human nature) "a servant; for the words 'subservience' and 'domination' are not names of the nature, but of relations, as the words 'paternity' and 'filiation.'" Hence Christ in His human nature is not subject to God the Father.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28): "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him." But, as is written (Heb. 2:8): "We see not as yet all things subject to Him." Hence He is not yet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things to Him.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 14:28), "The Father is greater than I"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "It is not without reason that the Scripture mentions both, that the Son is equal to the Father and the Father greater than the Son, for the first is said on account of the form of God, and the second on account of the form of a servant, without any confusion." Now the less is subject to the greater. Therefore in the form of a servant Christ is subject to the Father.
_I answer that,_ Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a threefold subjection to God. The first regards the degree of goodness, inasmuch as the Divine Nature is the very essence of goodness as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created nature has a participation of the Divine goodness, being subject, so to say, to the rays of this goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God, as regards God's power, inasmuch as human nature, even as every creature, is subject to the operation of the Divine ordinance. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God through its proper act, inasmuch as by its own will it obeys His command. This triple subjection to God Christ professes of Himself. The first (Matt. 19:17): "Why askest thou Me concerning good? One is good, God." And on this Jerome remarks: "He who had called Him a good master, and had not confessed Him to be God or the Son of God, learns that no man, however holy, is good in comparison with God." And hereby He gave us to understand that He Himself, in His human nature, did not attain to the height of Divine goodness. And because "in such things as are great, but not in bulk, to be great is the same as to be good," as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this reason the Father is said to be greater than Christ in His human nature. The second subjection is attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all that befell Christ is believed to have happened by Divine appointment; hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ "is subject to the ordinance of God the Father." And this is the subjection of subservience, whereby "every creature serves God" (Judith 16:17), being subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: "The creature serving Thee the Creator." And in this way the Son of God (Phil. 2:7) is said to have taken "the form of a servant." The third subjection He attributes to Himself, saying (John 8:29): "I do always the things that please Him." And this is the subjection to the Father, of obedience unto death. Hence it is written (Phil. 2:8) that he became "obedient" to the Father "unto death."
Reply Obj. 1: As we are not to understand that Christ is a creature simply, but only in His human nature, whether this qualification be added or not, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 8), so also we are to understand that Christ is subject to the Father not simply but in His human nature, even if this qualification be not added; and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid the error of Arius, who held the Son to be less than the Father.
Reply Obj. 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is based upon action and passion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to be moved by the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to the nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to supposita and to singulars," according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1). Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the person or hypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is not properly said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature. And in this way nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in human nature.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8): "Christ will give the kingdom to God and the Father, when He has brought the faithful, over whom He now reigns by faith, to the vision," i.e. to see the essence common to the Father and the Son: and then He will be totally subject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in His members by the full participation of the Godhead. And then all things will be fully subject to Him by the final accomplishment of His will concerning them; although even now all things are subject to Him as regards His power, according to Matt. 28:18: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth." _______________________
SECOND
*Lapide
. As He spake these wards many, c.; i.e. , many of the simple-minded, candid and teachable people, but few or none of the proud Pharisees. And they believed, not only as convinced by the force of His arguments, but charmed by the grace and power of His words. "Never man spake like this man."*H Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.
Ver. 31. If you persevere in the true faith, and in the observance of my words, you shall be my disciples indeed. It is not sufficient to believe; you must likewise do what my words command you to do: nor will it be sufficient to have the true faith for a time; you must persevere in that faith to the end. S. Aug. Ven. Bede. S. Chrys. Theophy. Euthym. &c. — Faith alone without perseverance, or abiding in God's commandments, will not suffice. B.
*Lapide
. Then said Jesus, c. He wished to confirm them in the faith they had accepted. If ye are so faithful and constant as to follow Me through persecutions and crosses, even to heaven itself, ye will be worthy not only of the name and title of My disciples, but also of their deserts and reward.*H And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free.
Ver. 32. And the truth shall make you free. They were affronted at these words, as if he hinted they were slaves, and not a free people. They tell him, therefore, that they were never slaves to any one. They can only pretend this of themselves: for, their forefathers were slaves to the Egyptians, to the Babylonians, &c. and besides they were now the subjects, if not slaves, to the Romans. But Christ speaks of the worst of slaveries, and tells them the such as live in sin, are slaves to sin. Wi.
*Lapide
. And ye shall know the truth, c. The Greek Fathers understand by the Truth, Christ Himself; meaning ye shall know Me to be the Truth, shadowed forth by the figures of the old Law, from which I will set you free, that ye may serve God not with bodily ceremonies, but in the Spirit and truth of faith, hope, and charity ( Joh 4:23 ). (2.) Hence, in accordance with the mind of Christ, If ye abide in My doctrine, ye shall taste by experience how sweet it is, and it will free you from the yoke of sin (see below, verse 34). For faith in Me will lead you to penitence, contrition, and charity, which does away with all sin. "If the Truth pleaseth thee not, let liberty please thee." He clearly restored liberty, and took away iniquity. Analogically: My doctrine will deliver you from the corruption of this place of mortality, change, and exile, because it will bring you to the liberty of a blessed immortality, and the glory of the children of God. Thus S. Augustine on this passage: "What doth He promise to those who believe? Ye shall know the truth. But did they not know it, when the Lord spake? for if they knew it not, how did they believe? They believed, not because they knew, but that they might know; for what is faith but believing that we see not? But the truth is, to see that which thou hast believed." There is a fourfold bondage which Christ did away with, and a fourfold liberty which He bestowed. (1.) The bondage of the Law which Christ did away with by the liberty of the Gospel, (2.) Bondage under sin, which He took away by the liberty of righteousness. (3.) Bondage under the dominion of concupiscence, which He took away by the liberty of the Spirit, and the dominion of charity and grace. (4.) Bondage under death and mortality, which He will take away by the liberty and glory of the resurrection. It does not refer to the liberty of the will, as though sinners were so entirely the slaves of sin as not to have any free-will, and that Christ gives it them back when He justifies them. For a sinner sins by free will, and a penitent repents and is justified only by his free-will, aided by the grace of God. Calvin foolishly denies free-will both to sinners and to the righteous. "Let us who are conscious of our own bondage glory only in Christ our deliverer." For he thinks that we are not intrinsically free, just as we are not intrinsically just by inherent righteousness, but only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Each of which opinions is not only an impious, but also a foolish heresy.*Lapide
. They answered Him, c. Christ in what He had said indirectly charged the Jews with ignorance and bondage. But as glorying in their descent from Abraham, they felt wounded; and putting aside the charge of ignorance, they proudly deny the charge of bondage, and say that they had no need of the liberty of Christ. We are slaves neither by birth, nor by condition. "And in like manner," says S. Chrysostom, "men when charged with impurity and wickedness put it aside, but when their family and work are impugned, they start up, as if they were mad." But the Jews did not understand Christ, for He spake not of civil, but of spiritual bondage, and that He would set them free from the bondage of sin by the liberty of grace. But did the Jews say truly that they were never in bondage to any man? S. Chrysostom and others say that they spoke too boastfully, but that they veiled their falsehood, because though often conquered they had never been sold as slaver. (2.) Cajetan, Toletus, Jansen, and others reply to the charge by saying that though the Jews had formerly been in bondage, yet that the present generation of Jews had never been so, for they were merely the subjects, not the slaves, of the Romans. And this seems to be the most satisfactory meaning; for to say that their fathers had never been in bondage would have been a falsehood at which the sun itself would have blushed, and Christ would have at once confuted it. All they meant to say was that their race was a free and noble one, and that their subjection to the Romans was not slavery.* Footnotes
-
*
Romans
6:15
What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!
-
*
Romans
6:16
Know you not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death or of obedience unto justice.
-
*
2_Peter
2:19
Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.
*Lapide
. Veri1y, verily, c. Most assured, i.e. , the saying is, and specially commended to their notice. But our Lord speaks to them modestly and becomingly, using only general terms and the third person. He might have said, Ye commit many sins, and are therefore the servants of sin, and from this bondage no one but Myself can deliver you. "A miserable bondage," exclaims S. Augustine in loc., and adds the reason. "A man slave, when worn out by his master's cruel treatment, can at length escape and be at rest. But whither can the servant of sin flee? He carries with him himself, whithersoever he flies. A wicked conscience cannot fly from itself; it has no place to go to, it follows itself. It cannot withdraw from itself; for the sin which causes it is within." (2.) S. Peter ( 2Pe 2:19 ) gives a further reason. "Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (3.) He who committeth sin is the servant of the devil, who instigates to sin, and he is a cruel tyrant, who drives on sinners, as though they were his slaves, ever drawing them on from one sin to another, and in the end to hell. (4.) Every sin leaves behind it a desire and inclination to repeat the sin, and this concupiscence remains, even after the sin has been given up, for our punishment and temptation. Whence the Apostle says that he was sold under sin, that he did what he would not (as feeling against his will the motives of concupiscence), and that he cannot do the things he would. (5.) Because the sinner is bound by the chains of the sin he has committed, so that he cannot free himself, unless Christ sets him free by His grace, according to the saying (Prov. v. 22), "His own iniquities take the wicked himself, and he is bound with the cords of his sins." In these passages, to sin, which is inanimate, is ascribed the character of a master, or tyrant, to signify (1.) the tyrannical power of sin and concupiscence, and (2.) because by sin is understood the devil, who holds sway in the realm of sin, and holds stern dominion over sinners. St. Ambrose, on the words of Psalm cxix. 94, "I am thine, O save me," says strikingly, "the worldling, cannot say to Him, I am Thine, for he has many masters. Lust comes, and says, Thou art mine, for thou desirest the things of the body. Avarice comes, and says, Thou art mine, for the silver and gold thou hast is the price of thy bondage. Luxury comes and says, Thou art mine, for one day's feasting is the price of thy life. Ambition comes, and says, Thou art clearly mine, for knowest thou not that I have set thee over others that thou mightest serve me? knowest thou not that I have conferred power on thee, in order to subject thee to mine own power? All the vices come, and say severally, Thou art mine. What a vile bond-slave is he whom so many compete for? And moreover the sinner who cannot say to God, I am Thine, hears from the devil, Thou art mine ." For as S. Ambrose adds, "Satan came and entered into him, and began to say, he (Judas) is not thine, O Jesus, but mine. He thinks those things that are mine, he ponders my thoughts in his heart; he feasts with Thee, and feeds with me; he receives bread from Thee, and money from me; he drinks with me, and sells me Thy Blood; he is Thy Apostle, but my hireling."* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 80, Article 4
[I-II, Q. 80, Art. 4]
Whether All the Sins of Men Are Due to the Devil's Suggestion?
Objection 1: It would seem that all the sins of men are due to the devil's suggestion. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the "crowd of demons are the cause of all evils, both to themselves and to others."
Obj. 2: Further, whoever sins mortally, becomes the slave of the devil, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the slave [Douay: 'servant'] of sin." Now "by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave" (2 Pet. 2:19). Therefore whoever commits a sin, has been overcome by the devil.
Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. iv, 10) the sin of the devil is irreparable, because he sinned at no other's suggestion. Therefore, if any men were to sin of their own free-will and without suggestion from any other, their sin would be irremediable: which is clearly false. Therefore all the sins of men are due to the devil's suggestion.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Eccl. Dogm. lxxxii): "Not all our evil thoughts are incited by the devil; sometimes they are due to a movement of the free-will."
_I answer that,_ the devil is the occasional and indirect cause of all our sins, in so far as he induced the first man to sin, by reason of whose sin human nature is so infected, that we are all prone to sin: even as the burning of wood might be imputed to the man who dried the wood so as to make it easily inflammable. He is not, however, the direct cause of all the sins of men, as though each were the result of his suggestion. Origen proves this (Peri Archon iii, 2) from the fact that even if the devil were no more, men would still have the desire for food, sexual pleasures and the like; which desire might be inordinate, unless it were subordinate to reason, a matter that is subject to the free-will.
Reply Obj. 1: The crowd of demons are the cause of all our evils, as regards their original cause, as stated.
Reply Obj. 2: A man becomes another's slave not only by being overcome by him, but also by subjecting himself to him spontaneously: it is thus that one who sins of his own accord, becomes the slave of the devil.
Reply Obj. 3: The devil's sin was irremediable, not only because he sinned without another's suggestion; but also because he was not already prone to sin, on account of any previous sin; which can be said of no sin of man. ________________________
*S Part 3, Ques 122, Article 4
[II-II, Q. 122, Art. 4]
Whether the Third Precept of the Decalogue, Concerning the Hallowing of the Sabbath, Is Fittingly Expressed?
Objection 1: It seems that the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is unfittingly expressed. For this, understood spiritually, is a general precept: since Bede in commenting on Luke 13:14, "The ruler of the synagogue being angry that He had healed on the Sabbath," says (Comment. iv): "The Law forbids, not to heal man on the Sabbath, but to do servile works," i.e. "to burden oneself with sin." Taken literally it is a ceremonial precept, for it is written (Ex. 31:13): "See that you keep My Sabbath: because it is a sign between Me and you in your generations." Now the precepts of the decalogue are both spiritual and moral. Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 2: Further, the ceremonial precepts of the Law contain "sacred things, sacrifices, sacraments and observances," as stated above (I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Now sacred things comprised not only sacred days, but also sacred places and sacred vessels, and so on. Moreover, there were many sacred days other than the Sabbath. Therefore it was unfitting to omit all other ceremonial observances and to mention only that of the Sabbath.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever breaks a precept of the decalogue, sins. But in the Old Law some who broke the observances of the Sabbath did not sin--for instance, those who circumcised their sons on the eighth day, and the priests who worked in the temple on the Sabbath. Also Elias (3 Kings 19), who journeyed for forty days unto the mount of God, Horeb, must have traveled on a Sabbath: the priests also who carried the ark of the Lord for seven days, as related in Josue 7, must be understood to have carried it on a Sabbath. Again it is written (Luke 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or his ass . . . and lead them to water?" Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 4: Further, the precepts of the decalogue have to be observed also under the New Law. Yet in the New Law this precept is not observed, neither in the point of the Sabbath day, nor as to the Lord's day, on which men cook their food, travel, fish, and do many like things. Therefore the precept of the observance of the Sabbath is unfittingly expressed.
_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Scripture.
_I answer that,_ The obstacles to true religion being removed by the first and second precepts of the decalogue, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), it remained for the third precept to be given whereby man is established in true religion. Now it belongs to religion to give worship to God: and just as the Divine scriptures teach the interior worship under the guise of certain corporal similitudes, so is external worship given to God under the guise of sensible signs. And since for the most part man is induced to pay interior worship, consisting in prayer and devotion, by the interior prompting of the Holy Ghost, a precept of the Law as necessary respecting the exterior worship that consists in sensible signs. Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boon was the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day."
Reply Obj. 1: The precept about hallowing the Sabbath, understood literally, is partly moral and partly ceremonial. It is a moral precept in the point of commanding man to aside a certain time to be given to Divine things. For there is in man a natural inclination to set aside a certain time for each necessary thing, such as refreshment of the body, sleep, and so forth. Hence according to the dictate of reason, man sets aside a certain time for spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God. And thus to have a certain time set aside for occupying oneself with Divine things is the matter of a moral precept. But, in so far as this precept specializes the time as a sign representing the Creation of the world, it is a ceremonial precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its allegorical signification, as representative of Christ's rest in the tomb on the seventh day: also in its moral signification, as representing cessation from all sinful acts, and the mind's rest in God, in which sense, too, it is a general precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its analogical signification, as foreshadowing the enjoyment of God in heaven. Hence the precept about hallowing the Sabbath is placed among the precepts of the decalogue, as a moral, but not as a ceremonial precept.
Reply Obj. 2: The other ceremonies of the Law are signs of certain particular Divine works: but the observance of the Sabbath is representative of a general boon, namely, the production of all creatures. Hence it was fitting that it should be placed among the general precepts of the decalogue, rather than any other ceremonial precept of the Law.
Reply Obj. 3: Two things are to be observed in the hallowing of the Sabbath. One of these is the end: and this is that man occupy himself with Divine things, and is signified in the words: "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." For in the Law those things are said to be holy which are applied to the Divine worship. The other thing is cessation from work, and is signified in the words (Ex. 20:11), "On the seventh day . . . thou shalt do no work." The kind of work meant appears from Lev. 23:3, "You shall do no servile work on that day [*Vulg.: 'You shall do no work on that day']." Now servile work is so called from servitude: and servitude is threefold. One, whereby man is the servant of sin, according to John 8:34, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," and in this sense all sinful acts are servile. Another servitude is whereby one man serves another. Now one man serves another not with his mind but with his body, as stated above (Q. 104, AA. 5, 6, ad 1). Wherefore in this respect those works are called servile whereby one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God; and in this way the work of worship, which pertains to the service of God, may be called a servile work. In this sense servile work is not forbidden on the Sabbath day, because that would be contrary to the end of the Sabbath observance: since man abstains from other works on the Sabbath day in order that he may occupy himself with works connected with God's service. For this reason, according to John 7:23, "a man [*Vulg.: 'If a man,' etc.] receives circumcision on the Sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken": and for this reason too we read (Matt. 12:5), that "on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple break the Sabbath," i.e. do corporal works on the Sabbath, "and are without blame." Accordingly, the priests in carrying the ark on the Sabbath did not break the precept of the Sabbath observance. In like manner it is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath to exercise any spiritual act, such as teaching by word or writing. Wherefore a gloss on Num 28 says that "smiths and like craftsmen rest on the Sabbath day, but the reader or teacher of the Divine law does not cease from his work. Yet he profanes not the Sabbath, even as the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame." On the other hand, those works that are called servile in the first or second way are contrary to the observance of the Sabbath, in so far as they hinder man from applying himself to Divine things. And since man is hindered from applying himself to Divine things rather by sinful than by lawful albeit corporal works, it follows that to sin on a feast day is more against this precept than to do some other but lawful bodily work. Hence Augustine says (De decem chord. iii): "It would be better if the Jew did some useful work on his farm than spent his time seditiously in the theatre: and their womenfolk would do better to be making linen on the Sabbath than to be dancing lewdly all day in their feasts of the new moon." It is not, however, against this precept to sin venially on the Sabbath, because venial sin does not destroy holiness.
Again, corporal works, not pertaining to the spiritual worship of God, are said to be servile in so far as they belong properly to servants; while they are not said to be servile, in so far as they are common to those who serve and those who are free. Moreover, everyone, be he servant or free, is bound to provide necessaries both for himself and for his neighbor, chiefly in respect of things pertaining to the well-being of the body, according to Prov. 24:11, "Deliver them that are led to death": secondarily as regards avoiding damage to one's property, according to Deut. 22:1, "Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother." Hence a corporal work pertaining to the preservation of one's own bodily well-being does not profane the Sabbath: for it is not against the observance of the Sabbath to eat and do such things as preserve the health of the body. For this reason the Machabees did not profane the Sabbath when they fought in self-defense on the Sabbath day (1 Macc. 2), nor Elias when he fled from the face of Jezabel on the Sabbath. For this same reason our Lord (Matt. 12:3) excused His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on account of the need which they suffered. In like manner a bodily work that is directed to the bodily well-being of another is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath: wherefore it is written (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath day?" And again, a bodily work that is done to avoid an imminent damage to some external thing does not profane the Sabbath, wherefore our Lord says (Matt. 12:11): "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep, and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"
Reply Obj. 4: In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people. For this observance is not figurative, as was the observance of the Sabbath in the Old Law. Hence the prohibition to work on the Lord's day is not so strict as on the Sabbath: and certain works are permitted on the Lord's day which were forbidden on the Sabbath, such as the cooking of food and so forth. And again in the New Law, dispensation is more easily granted than in the Old, in the matter of certain forbidden works, on account of their necessity, because the figure pertains to the protestation of truth, which it is unlawful to omit even in small things; while works, considered in themselves, are changeable in point of place and time. _______________________
FIFTH
*S Part 4, Ques 48, Article 4
[III, Q. 48, Art. 3]
Whether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of Redemption?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not effect our salvation by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what never ceased to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to God according to Ps. 23:1: "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof: the world and all they that dwell therein." Therefore it seems that Christ did not redeem us by His Passion.
Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "The devil had to be overthrown by Christ's justice." But justice requires that the man who has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it, because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone, as even human laws declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and subjugated to himself man, who is God's creature, it seems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by His Passion.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Pet. 1:18): "You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." And (Gal. 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Now He is said to be a curse for us inasmuch as He suffered upon the tree, as stated above (Q. 46, A. 4). Therefore He did redeem us by His Passion.
_I answer that,_ Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34): "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin"; and (2 Pet. 2:19): "By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave." Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil's bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by God's justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it is the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills.
Since, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Dan. 4:24: "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price--Himself--for us. And therefore Christ's Passion is called our redemption.
Reply Obj. 1: Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all, in so far as he comes under God's power: in which way he never ceased to belong to God; according to Dan. 4:22: "The Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Secondly, by being united to Him in charity, according to Rom. 8:9: "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." In the first way, then, man never ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did cease because of sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered from sin by the satisfaction of Christ's Passion, he is said to be redeemed by the Passion of Christ.
Reply Obj. 2: Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of the devil. Through guilt he had offended God, and put himself under the devil by consenting to him; consequently he did not become God's servant on account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing from God's service, he, by God's just permission, fell under the devil's servitude on account of the offense perpetrated. But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to God as his sovereign judge, and to the devil as his torturer, according to Matt. 5:25: "Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer"--that is, "to the relentless avenging angel," as Chrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although, after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly in bondage as to both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should suffer it, God so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the penalty. And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to God, but not with regard to the devil.
Reply Obj. 3: Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption--His own precious blood--not to the devil, but to God. _______________________
FIFTH
*S Part 4, Ques 71, Article 2
[III, Q. 71, Art. 2]
Whether Exorcism Should Precede Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed. But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism.
Obj. 2: Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power over him, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be exorcized before Baptism.
Obj. 3: Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy.
_On the contrary,_ Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): "Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration, they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics."
_I answer that,_ Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jer. 4:3): "Break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is the enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person to be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons.
Reply Obj. 1: The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt of original sin.
Reply Obj. 2: The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the exorcisms.
Reply Obj. 3: Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the demons which are from within. Hence those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly."
Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy against sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time. _______________________
THIRD
*H Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever.
Ver. 35. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever, nor has a right to live in that manner as a son and a child of the family has to live in his father's house. A slave or servant, though he live ever so long in his master's house, his condition is quite different from that of a son of the family: and thus Christ puts them in mind that though they be of the race of Abraham, and in that sense can pretend to be his children, yet having made themselves slaves to sin, and remaining in that sin, by which they refuse to believe in him, their Messias, they are not the spiritual children of Abraham, nor can they inherit the promises made to Abraham, till, by the grace of Christ, they believe in him, and become his adoptive children. Wi.
*Lapide
. The servant abideth not, c. He who is the servant of sin, like you Jews, has not the right of remaining in his Master's house (that is the Church of God) for ever: for after death he will be cast into the outer darkness of hell, as ye too will be cast out. But the Son abideth for ever in His Father's house, that is, I ever abide with My Father in heaven. But if through Me and My grace ye have been delivered from the bondage of sin, ye will abide for ever with Me, as adopted children, in the house of God, that is in the Church militant by grace, and in the Church triumphant, for ever happy and glorious in heaven. So S. Augustine, Bede, and others.*H If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
Ver. 36. Man never was without free-will; but, having the grace of Christ, his will is truly made free from the servitude of sin. S. Austin, tract. 41. in Joan.
*Lapide
. If therefore the Son, c. I alone can make you free, not Abraham or Moses, though most beloved servants of God. So S. Chrysostom and others.*H I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Ver. 37. You. That is, many of you, seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you; that is, is not rightly understood, nor received by you: you reject my doctrine, and are displeased with it. Wi.
*Lapide
. I know, c. By nature ye are Abraham's children, but in your deeds ye are degenerate. Your descent from Abraham will not therefore profit you. It will increase your damnation, for he will say at the last day, I acknowledge you not as my children, for ye have crucified Christ, my son and your brother. Because My word, c. Because ye will not take it in. Origen and S. Chrysostom think that these words were said to those who had before feebly believed in Christ, but who, on hearing themselves called "servants," were incensed against Him and wished to kill Him. But it is more probable that they were addressed to unbelievers who had before that plotted His death.*H I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.
Ver. 38. The things that you have seen with your father. That is, you follow the suggestions of the devil, whom, (v. 44.) in plain terms, he calls their father. Wi.
*Lapide
. I speak, c. Ye not only speak, but do that which ye have learnt from your father, the devil, especially in seeking to kill Me, implying that Abraham was not their father. See this more clearly declared verse 44.*H They answered and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.
Ver. 39. Not only faith but good works make men children of Abraham. See James, c. ii.
*Lapide
. They answered, c. Because Christ seemed to imply that they had another father, they wished to learn from Him who he was. We own Abraham, and none other as our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. It is so in the Vulgate. But some Greek MSS. read as in the English version. He does not deny their extraction, but condemns their doings. Says S. Augustine, "Your flesh may be from Abraham, but not so your life."*Lapide
. But now ye seek, c. Abraham did not injure any one, but saved Lot, and as many as he could. But the Jews were eager to kill Christ. The Jews ( Perke. Avoth. cap. v.) draw the same contrast between a disciple of Abraham and of Balaam.*H You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God.
Ver. 41. We are not born of fornication; we have one Father, God. These Jews perceived that Christ had hinted that they were not the true and faithful sons of Abraham; and therefore they replied in this manner. But Christ answered, if God was your Father, if you were his dutiful children, you would also believe in me, and love me; for I have proceeded from him, and am come from him, his true Son: and now sent into the world by him. But you cannot hear my word, because you will not, by your own wilful obstinate blindness. Wi.
*Lapide
. Ye do the works of your father. He persists in saying that they were not Abraham's children, but does not say whose children they were. Then said they unto Him, We be not born of fornication, c. Origen, Cyril, and Leontius think that in these words they implicitly reproached Him with His own birth. An atrocious statement, which the Pharisees studiously propagated, to detract from our Lord's credit and authority. But it would have been atrocious blasphemy. (2.) Euthymius and Rupertus suppose it to be only an assertion of their descent from Sarah, and not from Hagar, and thus not spurious, or in a secondary rank. (3.) We are not born of spiritual fornication, i.e. , idolatry. We are not Hagarenes, who were idolaters. Rupertus objects that to make out this meaning the word "but" should have been inserted. But Maldonatus maintains that such particles are often omitted, adding that fornication in the prophets means idolatry, as being spiritual fornication, drawing away the soul from its true Spouse (see Hos 1:2 ). Theophylact explains it to mean, "We are not born of mixed marriages of Jews and Gentiles, which were forbidden, and counted illegitimate by the Jews." (4.) The Jews reply in a straightforward manner, Abraham is our true earthly father; and one is our Father, even God in heaven. Your charge is therefore false. You unjustly claim the God of Abraham for thyself alone, and exclude us from sonship with Him, and hand us over to another father, the devil, making us spurious, and consequently infamous.*Lapide
. Jesus said, c. . Put syllogistically, our Lord's argument runs this, "He who loves God, loves also the Son of God. But ye do not love Me, who am the Son of God. Therefore ye love not God. Just as the Arians, who by denying Christ to be the Son of God, deny the Father also; for if He has not a Son, He cannot be called God the Father. For I proceeded forth ( ε̉ξη̃λθον ) and came ( ήκω ), I am here. S. Augustine, S. Hilary ( de Trin. vi.), consider that the twofold generation of our Lord is here set forth. I came forth by eternal generation. I am come into the world by My Incarnation. "That the Word proceeded forth from God, is His eternal procession" (says S. Augustine), but He came to us, because He was made flesh; His advent was His being made man. But Jansen, Maldonatus, and others refer both the expressions to the Incarnation, but yet as implying, and presupposing His eternal generation. "I came forth from God, and came into the world, though I had before come forth from God, and was in heaven as God" ( Joh 16:27 ). For I came not of Myself, but He sent Me. He teaches that He was not self-originate, says S. Hilary ( de Trin. vi.). Origen adds, He says this on account of some who came of themselves, and were not sent of the Father (see Jer 33:21 ). A warning to such as Lutherans, Calvinists, and others, who have no true mission.* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 27, Article 1
[I, Q. 27, Art. 1]
Whether There Is Procession in God?
Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be any procession in God. For procession signifies outward movement. But in God there is nothing mobile, nor anything extraneous. Therefore neither is there procession in God.
Obj. 2: Further, everything which proceeds differs from that whence it proceeds. But in God there is no diversity; but supreme simplicity. Therefore in God there is no procession.
Obj. 3: Further, to proceed from another seems to be against the nature of the first principle. But God is the first principle, as shown above (Q. 2, A. 3). Therefore in God there is no procession.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says, "From God I proceeded" (John 8:42).
_I answer that,_ Divine Scripture uses, in relation to God, names which signify procession. This procession has been differently understood. Some have understood it in the sense of an effect, proceeding from its cause; so Arius took it, saying that the Son proceeds from the Father as His primary creature, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the creature of both. In this sense neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost would be true God: and this is contrary to what is said of the Son, "That . . . we may be in His true Son. This is true God" (1 John 5:20). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, "Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor. 6:19). Now, to have a temple is God's prerogative. Others take this procession to mean the cause proceeding to the effect, as moving it, or impressing its own likeness on it; in which sense it was understood by Sabellius, who said that God the Father is called Son in assuming flesh from the Virgin, and that the Father also is called Holy Ghost in sanctifying the rational creature, and moving it to life. The words of the Lord contradict such a meaning, when He speaks of Himself, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything" (John 5:19); while many other passages show the same, whereby we know that the Father is not the Son. Careful examination shows that both of these opinions take procession as meaning an outward act; hence neither of them affirms procession as existing in God Himself; whereas, since procession always supposes action, and as there is an outward procession corresponding to the act tending to external matter, so there must be an inward procession corresponding to the act remaining within the agent. This applies most conspicuously to the intellect, the action of which remains in the intelligent agent. For whenever we understand, by the very fact of understanding there proceeds something within us, which is a conception of the object understood, a conception issuing from our intellectual power and proceeding from our knowledge of that object. This conception is signified by the spoken word; and it is called the word of the heart signified by the word of the voice.
As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot. Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in God.
Reply Obj. 1: This objection comes from the idea of procession in the sense of local motion, or of an action tending to external matter, or to an exterior effect; which kind of procession does not exist in God, as we have explained.
Reply Obj. 2: Whatever proceeds by way of outward procession is necessarily distinct from the source whence it proceeds, whereas, whatever proceeds within by an intelligible procession is not necessarily distinct; indeed, the more perfectly it proceeds, the more closely it is one with the source whence it proceeds. For it is clear that the more a thing is understood, the more closely is the intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent; since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with the object understood. Thus, as the divine intelligence is the very supreme perfection of God (Q. 14, A. 2), the divine Word is of necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without any kind of diversity.
Reply Obj. 3: To proceed from a principle, so as to be something outside and distinct from that principle, is irreconcilable with the idea of a first principle; whereas an intimate and uniform procession by way of an intelligible act is included in the idea of a first principle. For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed. _______________________
SECOND
*Lapide
. Why do ye not understand, c. Because cleaving to your pride, avarice, hatred, and enmity against Me, ye will not hear Me and understand. "They could not hear," says S. Augustine, "because they refused to be corrected by what they heard;" but (as says the Gloss) ye are of the devil, and have elected to go on with him. S. Gregory Nazianzen ( Orat . iv., de Theol .) tells us that in Scripture "I cannot" sometimes means "I will not." (See Matt. xix. 12.) But secondly, and more properly and forcibly, "Ye do not understand My words because ye cannot endure My teaching, and will not let My words enter your ears, so hateful am I to you, and so obstinately have you from hatred hardened your hearts against Me." Thus Emmanuel Sa.* Footnotes
-
*
1_John
3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
*H You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Ver. 44. You are of your father, the devil, and have made yourselves his slaves. — He was a murderer from the beginning of the world, having brought both a corporal and a spiritual death by sin, upon all mankind. — He abode not in the truth, in the ways of truth and obedience to God. — He is a liar, and the father thereof: that is, the father of lies. I speak truth, being truth itself. Wi. -- S. Austin compares heretics, who drive Christians out of the Church, to the devil, who was the cause of our first parents' banishment from paradise. Cont. lit. Petil. l. ii. c. 13.
*Lapide
. Ye are of your father the devil. "Not by descent but by imitation," says S. Augustine, quoting Ezek. xvi. 4; and adding, "The Jews, by imitating their impieties, found for themselves parents, not of whom to be born, but with whom they would be lost, by following their evil ways." S. Epiphanius ( Her . 38, 40) by the devil in this place understands Judas Iscariot, whom our Lord also calls a devil. But the author of "Questions on the Old and New Testament" ( apud S. Augustine) understands Cain. But it is certain that it must be taken literally to mean Lucifer. For the Jews in persecuting Jesus followed him as their father; "not by succession in the flesh, but in sin," says Ambrose ( Lib. iv . in 1oc .) Ye are of, c. "In order to kill Me." He explains that they are of the devil, by following his suggestion. S. Chrysostom says he speaks not of "works," but of desires (or lusts), showing that both lie and they greatly delighted in murders. For the devil has an ardent desire to destroy all men, both because he grudges them the glory from which he himself fell, but also to injure God, whom he hates as his torturer, and wishes to tear away men from Him whom He created in His own image, and called and predestinated to His own eternal grace and glory. He was a murderer, c. For as soon as Adam was created, Lucifer, the very same day through envy destroyed both him and all his posterity, by persuading him to eat of the forbidden fruit. And in like manner does he endeavour through you, O Jews, to kill Me, by Whom all men are to be redeemed from death. For he ever persists in his eager desire to destroy men, as the leopard and wolf, which feed on human flesh. He urged on Cain to kill Abel, and Joseph's brethren to destine him to death. And even now instigates all murderers to commit their murders. And much more does he thirst for the death and destruction of souls, though bodily death is here more properly meant, for this it was they plotted against Christ. Euthymius and S. Augustine ( Contra Petib. ii. 13). And abode not in the truth, i.e ., in the integrity and perfection, the grace, righteousness, and sanctity in which he was created. True means pure and unadulterated. As Nathaniel is called "a true Israelite, in whom is no guile." Again "in truth" means in that which was his duty. In S. John, David, and Solomon "the truth" commonly means this (see Joh 3:21 ). There is a threefold truth, in heart, word, and deed. The truth of the heart is opposed to error; the truth of word is opposed to a lie, the truth of deed is when a man acts in accordance with what is practically right, and this is opposed to iniquity and sin. Now the devil did not stand in the truth because he did not persevere in what he ought to have done. He refused to be under God. He claimed to be His equal, a kind of second god, and rose up against Him through pride. Hence he fell from his state of grace, and was cast down to hell (see Isa 14:12 ). And so S. Chrysostom ( Hom. liv.; S. Leo, Ser. de Quadr., and others). Hence (1.) S. Augustine ( contr. Adimantum iv. 4), understands by the "truth," the law, meaning that the devil did not abide in the Law of God. Others by "truth" understand fidelity, or the obedience due to God as the Creator. (2.) S. Irenæus (v. 22, 23) understands it to mean "veracity," as our Lord says below he is "a liar, and the father of it." Christ seems to charge the Jews with two faults, which they had learned from the devil, murder, and mendacity, and calumny. (3.) Origen ( Tom. xxiv.) understands it to mean "truth in practical matters," which Lucifer abandoned when he sinned by pride, which practically was a false step. This resulted from his not abiding in truth of act, and thus he departed from truth in heart and word, and thus by his lies deceived mankind. Hence S. Augustine ( de Civ. xi. 13) rightly infers that he was created in grace and righteousness, and that the Manichees were wrong in asserting that he was naturally wicked or created by an evil god. They inferred this wrongly from 1 John iii., "The devil sinneth from the beginning." The true meaning of this passage is explained in loco. Because there is no truth in him. Neither in thought, word, or deed, for those three kinds of truth have a sisterly relation to each other. But here "truth" rather signifies veracity. When he speaketh a lie, c. When he fell from his original beauty as an angel and became a hideous demon, it was innate in him to deceive; his special and proper business was to lie, and to this he entirely devotes himself. (2.) "Of his own," means of his own special invention. But men lie from imitating him, and by his suggestion. (3.) "Of his own," from his own inward delight in it He delights in it, as a thief in his thefts. For he is a liar. From his constant habit of lying, he is altogether made up of lies. And if he ever speaks truth, it is by compulsion, or else by means of truth to persuade men to what is false. And the father of it. "His father," says Nonnus. The Cainian heretics understood the devil to mean Cain. But the Manicheans on S. Augustine's authority ( in loco ) said that the devil had a father, even the evil god, and that both he and his son were liars. But I maintain that "of it" refers to the word "lie," which is understood in the term liar which occurs just before. And he is the father of a lie. (1.) Because he first invented the act of lying. (2.) Because he fashions and forms lies, as the potter moulds the clay. So S. Augustine and others. It is a Hebraism. Origen says, "The devil begot a lie. He was seduced by himself, and in this respect was worse, because others are deceived by him, whereas he is the author of his own deception." And S. Augustine, "Not every one that lies is a father of a lie, but he only who, like the devil, received it not from any other quarter." And hence the devil is the father and author of heresies, and therefore heresiarchs have had a devil at their side who suggested their heresies, as well as arguments to uphold them. So Luther confessed of himself. Such a suggester had Arius, Eunomius, Calvin, c. The Apostle (1 Tim. iv. 1) speaks of heresies as "doctrines of devils" (see notes in loco ).* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 63, Article 5
[I, Q. 63, Art. 5]
Whether the Devil Was Wicked by the Fault of His Own Will in the First Instant of His Creation?
Objection 1: It would seem that the devil was wicked by the fault of his own will in the first instant of his creation. For it is said of the devil (John 8:44): "He was a murderer from the beginning."
Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. i, 15), the lack of form in the creature did not precede its formation in order of time, but merely in order of nature. Now according to him (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8), the "heaven," which is said to have been created in the beginning, signifies the angelic nature while as yet not fully formed: and when it is said that God said: "Be light made: and light was made," we are to understand the full formation of the angel by turning to the Word. Consequently, the nature of the angel was created, and light was made, in the one instant. But at the same moment that light was made, it was made distinct from "darkness," whereby the angels who sinned are denoted. Therefore in the first instant of their creation some of the angels were made blessed, and some sinned.
Obj. 3: Further, sin is opposed to merit. But some intellectual nature can merit in the first instant of its creation; as the soul of Christ, or also the good angels. Therefore the demons likewise could sin in the first instant of their creation.
Obj. 4: Further, the angelic nature is more powerful than the corporeal nature. But a corporeal thing begins to have its operation in the first instant of its creation; as fire begins to move upwards in the first instant it is produced. Therefore the angel could also have his operation in the first instant of his creation. Now this operation was either ordinate or inordinate. If ordinate, then, since he had grace, he thereby merited beatitude. But with the angels the reward follows immediately upon merit; as was said above (Q. 62, A. 5). Consequently they would have become blessed at once; and so would never have sinned, which is false. It remains, then, that they sinned by inordinate action in their first instant.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 1:31): "God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good." But among them were also the demons. Therefore the demons were at some time good.
_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that the demons were wicked straightway in the first instant of their creation; not by their nature, but by the sin of their own will; because, as soon as he was made, the devil refused righteousness. To this opinion, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 13), if anyone subscribes, he does not agree with those Manichean heretics who say that the devil's nature is evil of itself. Since this opinion, however, is in contradiction with the authority of Scripture--for it is said of the devil under the figure of the prince of Babylon (Isa. 14:12): "How art thou fallen . . . O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning!" and it is said to the devil in the person of the King of Tyre (Ezech. 28:13): "Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God,"--consequently, this opinion was reasonably rejected by the masters as erroneous.
Hence others have said that the angels, in the first instant of their creation, could have sinned, but did not. Yet this view also is repudiated by some, because, when two operations follow one upon the other, it seems impossible for each operation to terminate in the one instant. Now it is clear that the angel's sin was an act subsequent to his creation. But the term of the creative act is the angel's very being, while the term of the sinful act is the being wicked. It seems, then, an impossibility for the angel to have been wicked in the first instant of his existence.
This argument, however, does not satisfy. For it holds good only in such movements as are measured by time, and take place successively; thus, if local movement follows a change, then the change and the local movement cannot be terminated in the same instant. But if the changes are instantaneous, then all at once and in the same instant there can be a term to the first and the second change; thus in the same instant in which the moon is lit up by the sun, the atmosphere is lit up by the moon. Now, it is manifest that creation is instantaneous; so also is the movement of free-will in the angels; for, as has been already stated, they have no occasion for comparison or discursive reasoning (Q. 58, A. 3). Consequently, there is nothing to hinder the term of creation and of free-will from existing in the same instant.
We must therefore reply that, on the contrary, it was impossible for the angel to sin in the first instant by an inordinate act of free-will. For although a thing can begin to act in the first instant of its existence, nevertheless, that operation which begins with the existence comes of the agent from which it drew its nature; just as upward movement in fire comes of its productive cause. Therefore, if there be anything which derives its nature from a defective cause, which can be the cause of a defective action, it can in the first instant of its existence have a defective operation; just as the leg, which is defective from birth, through a defect in the principle of generation, begins at once to limp. But the agent which brought the angels into existence, namely, God, cannot be the cause of sin. Consequently it cannot be said that the devil was wicked in the first instant of his creation.
Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15), when it is stated that "the devil sins from the beginning," "he is not to be thought of as sinning from the beginning wherein he was created, but from the beginning of sin": that is to say, because he never went back from his sin.
Reply Obj. 2: That distinction of light and darkness, whereby the sins of the demons are understood by the term darkness, must be taken as according to God's foreknowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15), that "He alone could discern light and darkness, Who also could foreknow, before they fell, those who would fall."
Reply Obj. 3: All that is in merit is from God; and consequently an angel could merit in the first instant of his creation. The same reason does not hold good of sin; as has been said.
Reply Obj. 4: God did not distinguish between the angels before the turning away of some of them, and the turning of others to Himself, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15). Therefore, as all were created in grace, all merited in their first instant. But some of them at once placed an impediment to their beatitude, thereby destroying their preceding merit; and consequently they were deprived of the beatitude which they had merited. _______________________
SIXTH
*S Part 1, Ques 63, Article 6
[I, Q. 63, Art. 6]
Whether There Was Any Interval Between the Creation and the Fall of the Angel?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was some interval between the angel's creation and his fall. For, it is said (Ezech. 28:15): "Thou didst walk perfect [*Vulg.: 'Thou hast walked in the midst of the stones of fire; thou wast perfect . . .'] in thy ways from the day of thy creation until iniquity was found in thee." But since walking is continuous movement, it requires an interval. Therefore there was some interval between the devil's creation and his fall.
Obj. 2: Further, Origen says (Hom. i in Ezech.) that "the serpent of old did not from the first walk upon his breast and belly"; which refers to his sin. Therefore the devil did not sin at once after the first instant of his creation.
Obj. 3: Further, capability of sinning is common alike to man and angel. But there was some delay between man's formation and his sin. Therefore, for the like reason there was some interval between the devil's formation and his sin.
Obj. 4: Further, the instant wherein the devil sinned was distinct from the instant wherein he was created. But there is a middle time between every two instants. Therefore there was an interval between his creation and his fall.
_On the contrary,_ It is said of the devil (John 8:44): "He stood not in the truth": and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15), "we must understand this in the sense, that he was in the truth, but did not remain in it."
_I answer that,_ There is a twofold opinion on this point. But the more probable one, which is also more in harmony with the teachings of the Saints, is that the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation. This must be maintained if it be held that he elicited an act of free-will in the first instant of his creation, and that he was created in grace; as we have said (Q. 62, A. 3). For since the angels attain beatitude by one meritorious act, as was said above (Q. 62, A. 5), if the devil, created in grace, merited in the first instant, he would at once have received beatitude after that first instant, if he had not placed an impediment by sinning.
If, however, it be contended that the angel was not created in grace, or that he could not elicit an act of free-will in the first instant, then there is nothing to prevent some interval being interposed between his creation and fall.
Reply Obj. 1: Sometimes in Holy Scripture spiritual instantaneous movements are represented by corporeal movements which are measured by time. In this way by "walking" we are to understand the movement of free-will tending towards good.
Reply Obj. 2: Origen says, "The serpent of old did not from the first walk upon his breast and belly," because of the first instant in which he was not wicked.
Reply Obj. 3: An angel has an inflexible free-will after once choosing; consequently, if after the first instant, in which he had a natural movement to good, he had not at once placed a barrier to beatitude, he would have been confirmed in good. It is not so with man; and therefore the argument does not hold good.
Reply Obj. 4: It is true to say that there is a middle time between every two instants, so far as time is continuous, as it is proved _Phys._ vi, text. 2. But in the angels, who are not subject to the heavenly movement, which is primarily measured by continuous time, time is taken to mean the succession of their mental acts, or of their affections. So the first instant in the angels is understood to respond to the operation of the angelic mind, whereby it introspects itself by its evening knowledge because on the first day evening is mentioned, but not morning. This operation was good in them all. From such operation some of them were converted to the praise of the Word by their morning knowledge while others, absorbed in themselves, became night, "swelling up with pride," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 24). Hence the first act was common to them all; but in their second they were separated. Consequently they were all of them good in the first instant; but in the second the good were set apart from the wicked. _______________________
SEVENTH
*S Part 1, Ques 114, Article 3
[I, Q. 114, Art. 3]
Whether All Sins Are Due to the Temptation of the Devil?
Objection 1: It would seem that all sins are due to the temptation of the devil. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the multitude of demons is the cause of all evils, both to themselves and to others." And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4) that "all malice and all uncleanness have been devised by the devil."
Obj. 2: Further, of every sinner can be said what the Lord said of the Jews (John 8:44): "You are of your father the devil." But this was in as far as they sinned through the devil's instigation. Therefore every sin is due to the devil's instigation.
Obj. 3: Further, as angels are deputed to guard men, so demons are deputed to assail men. But every good thing we do is due to the suggestion of the good angels: because the Divine gifts are borne to us by the angels. Therefore all the evil we do, is due to the instigation of the devil.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Eccl. Dogmat. xlix): "Not all our evil thoughts are stirred up by the devil, but sometimes they arise from the movement of our free-will."
_I answer that,_ One thing can be the cause of another in two ways; directly and indirectly. Indirectly as when an agent is the cause of a disposition to a certain effect, it is said to be the occasional and indirect cause of that effect: for instance, we might say that he who dries the wood is the cause of the wood burning. In this way we must admit that the devil is the cause of all our sins; because he it was who instigated the first man to sin, from whose sin there resulted a proneness to sin in the whole human race: and in this sense we must take the words of Damascene and Dionysius.
But a thing is said to be the direct cause of something, when its action tends directly thereunto. And in this way the devil is not the cause of every sin: for all sins are not committed at the devil's instigation, but some are due to the free-will and the corruption of the flesh. For, as Origen says (Peri Archon iii), even if there were no devil, men would have the desire for food and love and such like pleasures; with regard to which many disorders may arise unless those desires are curbed by reason, especially if we presuppose the corruption of our natures. Now it is in the power of the free-will to curb this appetite and keep it in order. Consequently there is no need for all sins to be due to the instigation of the devil. But those sins which are due thereto man perpetrates "through being deceived by the same blandishments as were our first parents," as Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii).
Thus the answer to the first objection is clear.
Reply Obj. 2: When man commits sin without being thereto instigated by the devil, he nevertheless becomes a child of the devil thereby, in so far as he imitates him who was the first to sin.
Reply Obj. 3: Man can of his own accord fall into sin: but he cannot advance in merit without the Divine assistance, which is borne to man by the ministry of the angels. For this reason the angels take part in all our good works: whereas all our sins are not due to the demons' instigation. Nevertheless there is no kind of sin which is not sometimes due to the demons' suggestion. _______________________
FOURTH
*S Part 3, Ques 172, Article 6
[II-II, Q. 172, Art. 6]
Whether the Prophets of the Demons Ever Foretell the Truth?
Objection 1: It would seem that the prophets of the demons never foretell the truth. For Ambrose [*Hilary the Deacon (Ambrosiaster) on 1 Cor. 12:3] says that "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken, is from the Holy Ghost." Now the prophets of the demons do not speak from the Holy Ghost, because "there is no concord between Christ and Belial [*'What concord hath Christ with Belial?']" (2 Cor. 6:15). Therefore it would seem that they never foretell the truth.
Obj. 2: Further, just as true prophets are inspired by the Spirit of truth, so the prophets of the demons are inspired by the spirit of untruth, according to 3 Kings 22:22, "I will go forth, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Now the prophets inspired by the Holy Ghost never speak false, as stated above (Q. 111, A. 6). Therefore the prophets of the demons never speak truth.
Obj. 3: Further, it is said of the devil (John 8:44) that "when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for the devil is a liar, and the father thereof," i.e. of lying. Now by inspiring his prophets, the devil speaks only of his own, for he is not appointed God's minister to declare the truth, since "light hath no fellowship with darkness [*Vulg.: 'What fellowship hath light with darkness?']" (2 Cor. 6:14). Therefore the prophets of the demons never foretell the truth.
_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Num. 22:14, says that "Balaam was a diviner, for he sometimes foreknew the future by help of the demons and the magic art." Now he foretold many true things, for instance that which is to be found in Num. 24:17: "A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a scepter shall spring up from Israel." Therefore even the prophets of the demons foretell the truth.
_I answer that,_ As the good is in relation to things, so is the true in relation to knowledge. Now in things it is impossible to find one that is wholly devoid of good. Wherefore it is also impossible for any knowledge to be wholly false, without some mixture of truth. Hence Bede says [*Comment. in Luc. xvii, 12; Cf. Augustine, QQ. Evang. ii, 40] that "no teaching is so false that it never mingles truth with falsehood." Hence the teaching of the demons, with which they instruct their prophets, contains some truths whereby it is rendered acceptable. For the intellect is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth, even as the will is seduced to evil by the semblance of goodness. Wherefore Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. xix, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom]: "The devil is allowed sometimes to speak true things, in order that his unwonted truthfulness may gain credit for his lie."
Reply Obj. 1: The prophets of the demons do not always speak from the demons' revelation, but sometimes by Divine inspiration. This was evidently the case with Balaam, of whom we read that the Lord spoke to him (Num. 22:12), though he was a prophet of the demons, because God makes use even of the wicked for the profit of the good. Hence He foretells certain truths even by the demons' prophets, both that the truth may be rendered more credible, since even its foes bear witness to it, and also in order that men, by believing such men, may be more easily led on to truth. Wherefore also the Sibyls foretold many true things about Christ.
Yet even when the demons' prophets are instructed by the demons, they foretell the truth, sometimes by virtue of their own nature, the author of which is the Holy Ghost, and sometimes by revelation of the good spirits, as Augustine declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 19): so that even then this truth which the demons proclaim is from the Holy Ghost.
Reply Obj. 2: A true prophet is always inspired by the Spirit of truth, in Whom there is no falsehood, wherefore He never says what is not true; whereas a false prophet is not always instructed by the spirit of untruth, but sometimes even by the Spirit of truth. Even the very spirit of untruth sometimes declares true things, sometimes false, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 3: Those things are called the demons' own, which they have of themselves, namely lies and sins; while they have, not of themselves but of God, those things which belong to them by nature: and it is by virtue of their own nature that they sometimes foretell the truth, as stated above (ad 1). Moreover God makes use of them to make known the truth which is to be accomplished through them, by revealing Divine mysteries to them through the angels, as already stated (Gen. ad lit. xii, 19; I, Q. 109, A. 4, ad 1). _______________________
*Lapide
But if I speak the truth, ye believe Me not. His argument stands thus, "Whosoever believeth a lie is a son of the devil. And ye believe a lie, and are therefore sons of the devil." But "if" may mean "because," as some Greek and Latin copies read. And so it would mean, "Because I speak the truth in truly reproving your sins, and truly asserting myself to be the Messiah, and prove this by miracles, yet ye will not believe Me because ye will not give up your sins, and will not believe what I say and teach, but rather believe the devil who persuades you that I am a false prophet, and my miracles are mere sleight of hand.*Lapide
. Which of you, c. This is to anticipate an objection of the Jews. For they might say, "We do not believe thee, because thou art a violater of our law, in healing the sick on the Sabbath-day." Produce any other charge against Me, and I will submit to your disbelieving Me. My healing on the Sabbath was not a violation, but a sanctification of the Sabbath. I leave any further charge to be decided by you who are my sworn enemies. So confident was Christ in His innocence that no one could lay anything to His charge which bore the slightest resemblance to sin. For He was Himself sinless, both on account of the Beatific Vision which He enjoyed, as the Blessed in heaven are incapable of sin for the same reason (for seeing God to be the Supreme Good, they necessarily love Him with all their strength, and hate whatever displeases Him) and likewise from the hypostatical union with the Word. For because His humanity existed in the Person of the Word, the Word kept His humanity free from all sin, and in perfect holiness. For if the humanity of Christ had sinned, the Person of the Word would have sinned; which is impossible. For virtuous or vicious actions relate to persons, and are attributed to them. Hence S. Ambrose (on Ps. xl. 13) brings in God the Father thus addressing Christ, "Thou wert conversant with sinners, Thou didst take on Thee the sins of all, Thou wast made sin for all, but yet no practice of sin could reach Thee. Thou didst dwell among men, as if among angels, Thou madest earth to be like heaven, that even there also Thou mightest take away sin." If I say the truth, c. He here shuts out another objection of the Jews. For they could have said, We believe Thee not, not for any sin which Thou hast committed, but because the things Thou sayest and teachest are not true." Christ meets the. objection by saying, "I have proved to you My doctrine by so many arguments and miracles, that no prudent person who is not blinded by hatred could question its perfect truth. If then My life is most innocent, and My doctrine most true, why do ye not believe Me?" Receive then the truth not as a bare assertion, but as demonstrated by reason.* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 15, Article 1
[III, Q. 15, Art. 1]
Whether There Was Sin in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is written (Ps. 21:2): "O God, My God . . . why hast Thou forsaken Me? Far from My salvation are the words of My sins." Now these words are said in the person of Christ Himself, as appears from His having uttered them on the cross. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were sins.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12) that "in Adam all have sinned"--namely, because all were in Adam by origin. Now Christ also was in Adam by origin. Therefore He sinned in him.
Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 2:18) that "in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now above all do we require His help against sin. Therefore it seems that there was sin in Him.
Obj. 4: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 5:21) that "Him that knew no sin" (i.e. Christ), "for us" God "hath made sin." But that really is, which has been made by God. Therefore there was really sin in Christ.
Obj. 5: Further, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi), "in the man Christ the Son of God gave Himself to us as a pattern of living." Now man needs a pattern not merely of right living, but also of repentance for sin. Therefore it seems that in Christ there ought to have been sin, that He might repent of His sin, and thus afford us a pattern of repentance.
_On the contrary,_ He Himself says (John 8:46): "Which of you shall convince Me of sin?"
_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1), Christ assumed our defects that He might satisfy for us, that He might prove the truth of His human nature, and that He might become an example of virtue to us. Now it is plain that by reason of these three things He ought not to have assumed the defect of sin. First, because sin nowise works our satisfaction; rather, it impedes the power of satisfying, since, as it is written (Ecclus. 34:23), "The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked." Secondly, the truth of His human nature is not proved by sin, since sin does not belong to human nature, whereof God is the cause; but rather has been sown in it against its nature by the devil, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20). Thirdly, because by sinning He could afford no example of virtue, since sin is opposed to virtue. Hence Christ nowise assumed the defect of sin--either original or actual--according to what is written (1 Pet. 2:22): "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth."
Reply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 25), things are said of Christ, first, with reference to His natural and hypostatic property, as when it is said that God became man, and that He suffered for us; secondly, with reference to His personal and relative property, when things are said of Him in our person which nowise belong to Him of Himself. Hence, in the seven rules of Tichonius which Augustine quotes in _De Doctr. Christ._ iii, 31, the first regards "Our Lord and His Body," since "Christ and His Church are taken as one person." And thus Christ, speaking in the person of His members, says (Ps. 21:2): "The words of My sins"--not that there were any sins in the Head.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far otherwise--from on high." Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially--and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth--actively from God. And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter.
Reply Obj. 3: In His temptation and passion Christ has succored us by satisfying for us. Now sin does not further satisfaction, but hinders it, as has been said. Hence, it behooved Him not to have sin, but to be wholly free from sin; otherwise the punishment He bore would have been due to Him for His own sin.
Reply Obj. 4: God "made Christ sin"--not, indeed, in such sort that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is written (Osee 4:8): "They shall eat the sins of My people"--they, i.e. the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin. And in that way it is written (Isa. 53:6) that "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (i.e. He gave Him up to be a victim for the sins of all men); or "He made Him sin" (i.e. made Him to have "the likeness of sinful flesh"), as is written (Rom. 8:3), and this on account of the passible and mortal body He assumed.
Reply Obj. 5: A penitent can give a praiseworthy example, not by having sinned, but by freely bearing the punishment of sin. And hence Christ set the highest example to penitents, since He willingly bore the punishment, not of His own sin, but of the sins of others. _______________________
SECOND
*S Part 4, Ques 83, Article 4
[III, Q. 83, Art. 4]
Whether the Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed?
Objection 1: It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not properly framed. For, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament is consecrated with Christ's own words. Therefore no other words besides Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament.
Obj. 2: Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known to us through the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacrament words are used which are not set down in the Gospels: for we do not read in the Gospel, of Christ lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating this sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: "Take ye and eat" (_comedite_) without the addition of the word "all," whereas in celebrating this sacrament we say: "Lifting up His eyes to heaven," and again, "Take ye and eat (_manducate_) of this." Therefore such words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration of this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the salvation of all the faithful. But in the celebration of the other sacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is unbecoming in this sacrament.
Obj. 4: Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith. Consequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the faith ought rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this sacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of the Gospels.
Obj. 5: Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine praises and by admonitions, such as, "Lift up your hearts."
Obj. 6: Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as stated above (Q. 82, A. 1). Consequently, all the words spoken in this sacrament ought to be uttered by the priest, and not some by the ministers, and some by the choir.
Obj. 7: Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly. Therefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting of this sacrament, saying: "Which oblation do thou, O God, in all," etc.
Obj. 8: Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much more excellent than the sacrifice of the fathers of old. Therefore, it is unfitting for the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech.
Objection 9: Further, just as Christ's body does not begin to be in this sacrament by change of place, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2), so likewise neither does it cease to be there. Consequently, it is improper for the priest to ask: "Bid these things be borne by the hands of thy holy angel unto Thine altar on high."
_On the contrary,_ We find it stated in _De Consecr.,_ dist. 1, that "James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass": and from their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed in this matter, are chosen becomingly.
_I answer that,_ Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the other sacraments. And since it is written (Eccles. 4:17): "Keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of God"; and (Ecclus. 18:23): "Before prayer prepare thy soul," therefore the celebration of this mystery is preceded by a certain preparation in order that we may perform worthily that which follows after. The first part of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the "Introit": according to Ps. 49:23: "The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me; and there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God": and this is taken for the most part from the Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "The Psalms comprise by way of praise whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture."
The second part contains a reference to our present misery, by reason of which we pray for mercy, saying: "Lord, have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Father, and "Christ, have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Son, and "Lord, have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of ignorance, sin, and punishment; or else to express the "circuminsession" of all the Divine Persons.
The third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the possession of which, after this life of misery, we are tending, in the words, "Glory be to God on high," which are sung on festival days, on which the heavenly glory is commemorated, but are omitted in those sorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state.
The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the people, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries.
There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as stated above (Q. 78, A. 3, ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when the Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the "Alleluia" is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the "Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed "perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, "If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" after the Gospel has been read, the "Creed" is sung in which the people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on other such days.
So then, after the people have been prepared and instructed, the next step is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery, which is both offered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament: since first we have the oblation; then the consecration of the matter offered; and thirdly, its reception.
In regard to the oblation, two things are done, namely, the people's praise in singing the "offertory," expressing the joy of the offerers, and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to be made acceptable to God. Hence David said (1 Para 29:17): "In the simplicity of my heart, I have . . . offered all these things: and I have seen with great joy Thy people which are here present, offer Thee their offerings": and then he makes the following prayer: "O Lord God . . . keep . . . this will."
Then, regarding the consecration, performed by supernatural power, the people are first of all excited to devotion in the "Preface," hence they are admonished "to lift up their hearts to the Lord," and therefore when the "Preface" is ended the people devoutly praise Christ's Godhead, saying with the angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy"; and His humanity, saying with the children: "Blessed is he that cometh." In the next place the priest makes a "commemoration," first of those for whom this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, and "for those set in high places" (1 Tim. 2:2), and, in a special manner, of them "who offer, or for whom the mass is offered." Secondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking their patronage for those mentioned above, when he says: "Communicating with, and honoring the memory," etc. Thirdly, he concludes the petition when he says: "Wherefore that this oblation," etc., in order that the oblation may be salutary to them for whom it is offered.
Then he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks first of all for the effect of the consecration, when he says: "Which oblation do Thou, O God," etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our Saviour's words, when he says: "Who the day before," etc. Thirdly, he makes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying: "Wherefore, calling to mind," etc. Fourthly, he asks that the sacrifice accomplished may find favor with God, when he says: "Look down upon them with a propitious," etc. Fifthly, he begs for the effect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for the partakers, saying: "We humbly beseech Thee"; then for the dead, who can no longer receive it, saying: "Be mindful also, O Lord," etc.; thirdly, for the priests themselves who offer, saying: "And to us sinners," etc.
Then follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First of all, the people are prepared for Communion; first, by the common prayer of the congregation, which is the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask for our daily bread to be given us; and also by private prayer, which the priest puts up specially for the people, when he says: "Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord," etc. Secondly, the people are prepared by the "Pax" which is given with the words, "Lamb of God," etc., because this is the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 4; Q. 79, A. 1). But in masses for the dead, in which the sacrifice is offered not for present peace, but for the repose of the dead, the "Pax" is omitted.
Then follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest receiving first, and afterwards giving it to others, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first to partake thereof himself.
Finally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving, the people rejoicing for having received the mystery (and this is the meaning of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning thanks by prayer, as Christ, at the close of the supper with His disciples, "said a hymn" (Matt. 26:30).
Reply Obj. 1: The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words only; but the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: As is stated in the last chapter of John (verse 25), our Lord said and did many things which are not written down by the Evangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at the supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by tradition from the apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes to the Father in raising Lazarus to life, as related in John 11:41, and in the prayer which He made for the disciples (John 17:1), had more reason to do so in instituting this sacrament, as being of greater import.
The use of the word _manducate_ instead of _comedite_ makes no difference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify, especially since those words are no part of the form, as stated above (Q. 78, A. 1, ad 2, 4).
The additional word "all" is understood in the Gospels, although not expressed, because He had said (John 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man . . . you shall not have life in you."
Reply Obj. 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the whole Church: and therefore in this sacrament, more than in the others, mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation of the entire Church.
Reply Obj. 4: There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: the first is for those receiving it for the first time, that is to say, for catechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with Baptism. The other is the instruction of the faithful who take part in this sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with this sacrament. Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not excluded therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down: "Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing the word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews, until the mass of the Catechumens begins," in which the instruction regarding the Faith is contained.
Reply Obj. 5: Greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in the others, for the reason that the entire Christ is contained therein. Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion, i.e. on the part of the whole people, since for them it is offered; and not merely on the part of the recipients, as in the other sacraments. Hence Cyprian observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), "The priest, in saying the Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying, 'Lift up your hearts,' and when the people answer--'We have lifted them up to the Lord,' let them remember that they are to think of nothing else but God."
Reply Obj. 6: As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in this sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently some things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same of these words are all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the entire people with them; and there are other words which the priest begins and the people take up, the priest then acting as in the person of God; to show that the things they denote have come to the people through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; and therefore the priest intones the "Creed" and the "Gloria in excelsis Deo." Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, as a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there are other words which the priest alone recites, namely, such as belong to his personal office, "that he may offer up gifts and prayers for the people" (Heb. 5:1). Some of these, however, he says aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people alike, such as the "common prayers"; other words, however, belong to the priest alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the prayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to attention by saying: "The Lord be with you," and he waits for them to assent by saying "Amen." And therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud, "The Lord be with you," and he concludes, "For ever and ever." Or the priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret.
Reply Obj. 7: The efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered by the priest's intention. Nor is there anything unbecoming in our asking of God for what we know He will do, just as Christ (John 17:1, 5) asked for His glorification.
But the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard, hence he says expressively: "That it may become _to us_ the body and the blood." Again, the words preceding these have that meaning, when he says: "Vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed," i.e. according to Augustine (Paschasius, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xii), "that we may receive a blessing," namely, through grace; "'enrolled,' i.e. that we may be enrolled in heaven; 'ratified,' i.e. that we may be incorporated in Christ; 'reasonable,' i.e. that we may be stripped of our animal sense; 'acceptable,' i.e. that we who in ourselves are displeasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only Son."
Reply Obj. 8: Although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all ancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most acceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the priest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through the devotion of the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted by Him.
Reply Obj. 9: The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ's mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament, that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of both priest and people, according to Apoc. 8:4: "And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel." But God's "altar on high" means either the Church triumphant, unto which we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it is said of this altar (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps towards the Trinity." Or else by the angel we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the "Angel of great counsel" (Isa. 9:6: Septuagint), Who unites His mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.
And from this the mass derives its name (_missa_); because the priest sends (_mittit_) his prayers up to God through the angel, as the people do through the priest, or else because Christ is the victim sent (_missa_) to us: accordingly the deacon on festival days "dismisses" the people at the end of the mass, by saying: "Ite, missa est," that is, the victim has been sent (_missa est_) to God through the angel, so that it may be accepted by God. _______________________
FIFTH
* Footnotes
-
*
1_John
4:6
We are of God. He that knoweth God heareth us. He that is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
*Lapide
. He that is of God, c. He here assigns the true reason for the unbelief of the Jews, because they were born not of God, but of the devil; that is, ye do not listen to the spirit and instinct of God, but of the devil. For the devil has blinded your hearts with covetousness, hatred, and envy of Me. And ye therefore listen not to the words of God which I, who am sent from Him, announce to you, because ye will not hear and understand them. Because then ye are not the children of God who is true, but of the devil who is a liar, ye listen to his lying suggestions, but will not give a hearing to the true words of God which are uttered by Me. Moreover S. Augustine and S. Gregory ( Hom. xviii.) understand these words of the elect and reprobate. He who is predestinated and elected hears the words of God, ye hear them not because ye are reprobate. But this is not the literal and genuine sense of the word, but merely an adapted one. For as Toletus and Maldonatus observe, many of those who at that time did not believe in Christ afterwards believed at the preaching of S. Peter and the Apostles; and on the other hand, some who then believed in Christ afterwards fell away from the faith, and became reprobates (see Joh 6:67 ). Lastly, the Manichees inferred wrongly from the passage (as S. Augustine asserts) that some men are good by their own nature, as created by the good God, but others are naturally evil, as created by the evil principle. Morally: S. Gregory infers thus from this saying of Christ: "Let each one ask himself if he takes in the word of God with the ear of his heart, and he will understand whence it is. The truth bids us long for the heavenly country, to crush the desires of the flesh, to shun the glory of the world, not to covet others' goods, to be liberal with one's own. Let each one of you consider with himself if this voice of God has prevailed in the ear of his heart, and he will acknowledge that it is from God." And just below, "There are some who willingly listen to the words of God so as to be moved by compunction even to tears, but who after their tears go back again to their sin. And these assuredly hear not the words of God, because they scorn to carry them out in deed." Hence S. Gregory infers that it is a mark of divine predestination if a man obeys the holy inspirations of God, and of reprobation if he rejects them (see Pro 1:24 ). And Joh 10:27 , "My sheep hear My voice." They who hear the voice of Christ their Shepherd are saved, they who hear not are devoured by the devil. So too Christ says plainly, "Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it" ( Luk 11:25 ). And S. Bernard (Serm. 1 , in Septuag .) tells his monks that the greatest proof of predestination is the profitable hearing of the word of God. For it was their constant food, by reading and meditation and prayer, to examine whatever proceeds from the mouth of God, and to fulfil it in their lives.*Lapide
. The Jews answered and said, c. They used to say it, though it is written nowhere else. But why did they call Him a Samaritan? (1.) Because He associated with the Samaritans. (2.) Because He came from Galilee, which was near Samaria. (3.) Because the Samaritans were partly Jews and partly Gentiles, and Christ seemed to them to be the same as bringing in a new faith and religion; and He thus seemed to be mixing up the traditions of the elders with the Gospel. (4.) And lastly, because He seemed to be making a schism, like the Samaritans. A Samaritan was, moreover, a term of reproach. And has a devil. (1.) Because they said He cast out devils through Beelzebub, the chief of the devils. (2.) Because He made Himself God, transferring to Himself the glory due to God, as Lucifer strove to do. So Leontius. Our Lord so understood it, and answered, "I seek not My own glory." (3.) Thou art mad, like lunatics, and those possessed with devils (see x. 20, and vii. 20). This was an atrocious blasphemy. How wondrous, then, the patience of Christ! For He answered,*Lapide
. I have not a devil, c. As loving truth He denies the false charge, but though all-powerful He returns not their reproach. "God, though receiving an injury, replies not with words of contumely; and thou, when insulted by thy neighbours, shouldest abstain from their evil words, lest the exercise of just reproof should be turned into weapons of anger." And Chrysostom, "When it was necessary to teach, and to inveigh against their pride, He was severe. But in bearing with those who reproached Him, He exercised great gentleness, to teach us to resent any wrongs done to God, to overlook the wrongs done to ourselves." And S. Augustine, "Let us imitate His patience, that we may attain to His powers." Christ took no notice of the term Samaritan, because it was a reproach directed only against Himself, and not against God. He refused therefore to avenge His own wrongs, but would defend the honour of God. All knew He was a Galilean, and not a Samaritan, and by saying that He had not a devil, He refuted at the same time the charge of being a Samaritan. For the Samaritans, as schismatics, were the bond slaves of the devil. S. Gregory (Hom. xviii.) gives a mystical reason for His silence. "A Samaritan," he says, "means a guardian, and He is truly our guardian, of whom the Psalmist speaks, 'Except the Lord keep the city, they watch in vain who guard it' ( Psa 127:2 ); to whom moreover it is said by Isaiah, 'Watchman, what of the night?' He would not therefore say, 'I am not a Samaritan,' lest he should deny also that He was our guardian." I have not a devil. But ye have one. So far from detracting from the glory of God, or claiming it for Myself, as Lucifer did, I continually honour the Father and say that I derive everything from Him, that I am sent from Him, that I obey Him in all things, that I refer everything I have to Him, and direct everything to His honour and glory. But ye rather dishonour God the Father, because ye dishonour Me, and assail Me with most bitter reproaches, though I am His Son, and His ambassador in the world. So Leontius. Others explain it more generally of sin I honour My Father by good works, ye dishonour Him by your sins. So S. Augustine.*Lapide
. I seek not, c. It is God the Father who will most sharply punish those who seek not My glory, but in every way dishonour and discredit Me. S. Chrysostom. It may be said, "This is contrary to what Christ says (v. 22), The Father judgeth man ." But there Christ speaks of the public and general judgment, here He speaks of the private and daily judgment with which He avenges the wrongs done to His Son and His saints, as by the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus for the death of Christ; as He here seems to hint. So Maldonatus and others. But the Gloss says, "There is one that judgeth who distinguishes My glory from yours; as David says, 'Judge Me, O God, and distinguish My cause from that of the ungodly people'" (Psa 43:1 , Vulg .)* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 13, Article 4
[III, Q. 13, Art. 4]
Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence As Regards the Execution of His Will?
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence as regards the execution of His own will. For it is written (Mk. 7:24) that "entering into a house, He would that no man should know it, and He could not be hid." Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of His will in all things.
Obj. 2: Further, a command is a sign of will, as was said in the First Part (Q. 19, A. 12). But our Lord commanded certain things to be done, and the contrary came to pass, for it is written (Matt. 9:30, 31) that Jesus strictly charged them whose eyes had been opened, saying: "See that no man know this. But they going out spread His fame abroad in all that country." Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of His will in everything.
Obj. 3: Further, a man does not ask from another for what he can do himself. But our Lord besought the Father, praying for what He wished to be done, for it is written (Luke 6:12): "He went out into a mountain to pray, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God." Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of His will in all things.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 77): "It is impossible for the will of the Saviour not to be fulfilled: nor is it possible for Him to will what He knows ought not to come to pass."
_I answer that,_ Christ's soul willed things in two ways. First, what was to be brought about by Himself; and it must be said that He was capable of whatever He willed thus, since it would not befit His wisdom if He willed to do anything of Himself that was not subject to His will. Secondly, He wished things to be brought about by the Divine power, as the resurrection of His own body and such like miraculous deeds, which He could not effect by His own power, except as the instrument of the Godhead, as was said above (A. 2).
Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 77): "What came to pass, this Christ must be said to have willed. For it must be remarked that this happened in the country of the Gentiles, to whom it was not yet time to preach. Yet it would have been invidious not to welcome such as came spontaneously for the faith. Hence He did not wish to be heralded by His own, and yet He wished to be sought; and so it came to pass." Or it may be said that this will of Christ was not with regard to what was to be carried out by it, but with regard to what was to be done by others, which did not come under His human will. Hence in the letter of Pope Agatho, which was approved in the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act. iv], we read: "When He, the Creator and Redeemer of all, wished to be hid and could not, must not this be referred only to His human will which He deigned to assume in time?"
Reply Obj. 2: As Gregory says (Moral. xix), by the fact that "Our Lord charged His mighty works to be kept secret, He gave an example to His servants coming after Him that they should wish their miracles to be hidden; and yet, that others may profit by their example, they are made public against their will." And thus this command signified His will to fly from human glory, according to John 8:50, "I seek not My own glory." Yet He wished absolutely, and especially by His Divine will, that the miracle wrought should be published for the good of others.
Reply Obj. 3: Christ prayed both for things that were to be brought about by the Divine power, and for what He Himself was to do by His human will, since the power and operation of Christ's soul depended on God, "Who works in all [Vulg.: 'you'], both to will and to accomplish" (Phil. 2:13). _______________________
*H Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.
Ver. 51. He shall not see death, he shall not die, for ever. That is, he shall not incur an eternal death, as they who die in sin: but they understood his words of the death of the body. Wi. — You accuse me of being possessed with a devil, because I preach to you a doctrine far different from what you are accustomed to hear; but I speak nothing but the truth; I give honour to my Father, I execute his orders; and the words I now speak to you, are the words of eternal life. Whoever observes them shall not die. Moses promised a long life to those who observed what was commanded in the old law, and offered them as their reward goods and temporal prosperity. But I now offer you an eternal life. Believe my words, keep them, and observe my ordinances, and you shall not feel the death of the soul, the second, eternal, and most miserable of deaths. Calmet.
*Lapide
. Verily, verily, I say . He says this not from indignation but from pity of the Jews, showing that He is seeking not His own glory, but their salvation. "I say in very truth," and as S. Augustine thinks, he means I swear , "that if ye keep My commandments ye shall never die the death of the soul; ye shall never sin, for sin is the death of the soul. But ye shall ever live, here in the grace of God, and in heaven in His glory. Ye shall die indeed in the body, but I will raise you up in the day of judgment, and ye shall live in happiness of body and spirit for all eternity." So S. Augustine.*Lapide
. Now we know, c. "The devil suggests to Thee such proud and absurd boasting, that Thy word will drive away death from those who believe in Thee, when we see that Prophets and holy men, as Abraham, all died. But as says S. Gregory ( Hom. xviii.), looking only to the death of the body, they were dark to the word of truth. For as Bede saith, "Abraham, though dead in the body, was alive in his soul." Learn from this, thou Religious, thou Preacher, thou Christian, from thy Master to receive calumnies for thy good deeds, curses and ill-will for thy kindnesses. Learn also to be good to the ungrateful. For Christ, though unweariedly teaching the Jews, healing them, delivering them from evil spirits, yet patiently endured these contumelies and reproaches, ingratitude in return for kindnesses, blasphemies for miracles, and for His teaching derision and reprehension, and yet did not cease to benefit those who were ungrateful, the very highest point of patience and charity. Abraham is dead, c. Thou blasphemest then, in making thyself gr ater than Abraham and the Prophets, yea, even greater than God Himself, since the word of God could not deliver Abraham and the Prophets from death. But yet the word of God, promulged by the lips of Christ, was more powerful than the word of God which was uttered to Abraham and the Prophets. And, moreover, Abraham and the Prophets were not dead in their souls, and though dead in the body were to be raised up by Christ to eternal life.*Lapide
. Art thou greater? c. They considered it most absurd, and even blasphemous, for Christ to prefer Himself to Abraham, as He really did; for He was both God and man, though the Jews knew it not, or rather refused to believe it.*Lapide
. Jesus answered, c. This was in answer to their question , Whom makest thou Thyself? He refers all His glory to His Father from whom He is, and who is God. What I say of Myself is of no value or weight, and that not only with you, as S. Chrysostom says, but with others. For in every court no one is believed on his own word but on the testimony of others, who witness for him (see chap. v. 31). Solomon also says, "Let another praise thee, and not thine own lips" ( Pro 27:2 ). The Arians objected that the Father glorifies the Son. He is therefore greater than the Son. S. Augustine replies, "Thou heretic, readest thou not that the Son Himself said that He glorifies His Father? But He also glorifies the Son, and the Son glorifies the Father. Put aside thy pernicious teaching, acknowledge their equality, correct thy perversity."*Lapide
. Yet ye have not known Him, c. (1.) Ye know not the true God whom ye worship; ye know Him not to be one in essence and threefold in person, for ye think Him to be one in Person, as He is one in essence. Ye know not that God is a Father, and that He begat Me His Son, and that we two by our Breath produced the Holy Ghost. For had ye known it, ye would certainly have known and believed Me to be the Messiah, the Son of God; and conversely, "if ye had known Me, ye would assuredly have known My Father," says S. Chrysostom. (2.) S. Augustine says, Ye believe that there is one God, though ye neither see nor hear Him (see chap. v. 37). Ye ought therefore equally to believe in Me His Son, on account of the many signs and wonders which I work, though ye see not the Godhead which is hid within. (3.) Ye have not known Him, ye have not believed His testimony, This is My beloved Son; for ye knew not, or rather would not know, that this was the true voice of God. (4.) Euthymius explains, "Ye have not shown that ye know Him, because ye live wickedly, not as worshippers of God, but like idolatrous Gentiles, professing, as S. Paul says, to know Him (Tit, i. 16), but in works denying Him." And if I say, c. Maldonatus thinks that Christ called the Jews "liars," because they said to Him, "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil." For these were two most gross falsehoods, nay even blasphemies. But S. Chrysostom, Ammonius, and Theophylact are more to the point in asserting that they were called "liars," because they lied in saying that they knew God. For they believed not that He had a Son, and was threefold in His personality. But I know Him, c. Theophylact explains it thus, "I show by my life and conduct that I know, reverence, and worship God, because I reverently observe and constantly fulfil His word. Or it may be explained, even better, in this way. Because I acknowledge God the Father, and clearly perceive His Majesty, Power, and Holiness; I therefore, as man, greatly reverence Him, and clearly and fully observe His precept, which ye Jews do not observe, because ye know not nor comprehend His Majesty, and therefore do not reverence it." So Theophylact. Moreover, S. Augustine says, "He spake as the Son, the Word of the Father, and was the very Word of the Father Who spake to men." And He fitly said the " word, " not the " precept, " because He Himself was the Word of the Father, and the Father had ordered Him to announce to men that very truth, that they should acknowledge, believe, and worship God the Father and God the Son.* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 9, Article 2
[III, Q. 9, Art. 2]
Whether Christ Had the Knowledge Which the Blessed or Comprehensors Have?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed or comprehensors. For the knowledge of the blessed is a participation of Divine light, according to Ps. 35:10: "In Thy light we shall see light." Now Christ had not a participated light, but He had the Godhead Itself substantially abiding in Him, according to Col. 2:9: "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally." Therefore in Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed.
Obj. 2: Further, the knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed, according to John 17:3: "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent." But this Man was blessed through being united to God in person, according to Ps. 64:5: "Blessed is He Whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee." Therefore it is not necessary to suppose the knowledge of the blessed in Him.
Obj. 3: Further, to man belongs a double knowledge--one by nature, one above nature. Now the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of God, is not natural to man, but above his nature. But in Christ there was another and much higher supernatural knowledge, i.e. the Divine knowledge. Therefore there was no need of the knowledge of the blessed in Christ.
_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of the blessed consists in the knowledge of God. But He knew God fully, even as He was man, according to John 8:55: "I do know Him, and do keep His word." Therefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the blessed.
_I answer that,_ What is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is in act; for that whereby things are heated must itself be hot. Now man is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of God; and is ordained to it as to an end; since the rational creature is capable of that blessed knowledge, inasmuch as he is made in the image of God. Now men are brought to this end of beatitude by the humanity of Christ, according to Heb. 2:10: "For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, Who had brought many children unto glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by His passion." And hence it was necessary that the beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, should belong to Christ pre-eminently, since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect.
Reply Obj. 1: The Godhead is united to the manhood of Christ in Person, not in essence or nature; yet with the unity of Person remains the distinction of natures. And therefore the soul of Christ, which is a part of human nature, through a light participated from the Divine Nature, is perfected with the beatific knowledge whereby it sees God in essence.
Reply Obj. 2: By the union this Man is blessed with the uncreated beatitude, even as by the union He is God; yet besides the uncreated beatitude it was necessary that there should be in the human nature of Christ a created beatitude, whereby His soul was established in the last end of human nature.
Reply Obj. 3: The beatific vision and knowledge are to some extent above the nature of the rational soul, inasmuch as it cannot reach it of its own strength; but in another way it is in accordance with its nature, inasmuch as it is capable of it by nature, having been made to the likeness of God, as stated above. But the uncreated knowledge is in every way above the nature of the human soul. _______________________
THIRD
*H Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad.
Ver. 56. Abraham, your father, rejoiced that he might see my day, my entrance into this world, my incarnation, my birth, my manifestation in Israel, my death and passion. S. Irenæus, Origen, S. Cyril, &c. — He waited with impatience for the deliverance of the whole world. He saw it, and was glad. He saw it in spirit, for God revealed it to him. He saw it approaching in the birth of his son Isaac, and in the miraculous deliverance of his dear son, when he was commanded to offer him in sacrifice to the Lord. The vivacity of his faith made him, as it were, present at the time of my birth, though then so far off. S. Chrys. Leont. Theophyl. Euth. — It is not unlikely that this patriarch, and the others who were with him, detained in limbo, were apprised of the incarnation and coming of the Messias, which would fill them with an effusion of inexpressible joy. S. Chrys. — Christ here teaches us two things. 1. That he was before Abraham. 2. That the Jews were not true sons of Abraham, now treating so rudely him, who, even before his coming, had given the patriarch so much joy. Calmet.
*Lapide
. Your father Abraham , c. He longed for it with exulting mind; "He feared not, but exulted," says S. Augustine. "Believing he exulted with hope, that he might see by understanding." It is a catachresis. But what day? S. Augustine understands by it, that day of all eternity, wherein from all eternity the Son was begotten of the Father. "He wished to know My eternal generation and My Godhead, that he might believe in it, and be thereby saved." "He saw," says S. Augustine, " My day because he acknowledged the mystery of the trinity." (Bede follows him, as usual.) S. Jerome (on Dan. viii.) and S. Gregory ( in loc. ) say that it was the day when, by the three angels that appeared to him, only one of whom spoke to him, the mystery of the Trinity was by symbols revealed to him; he saw three but adored one (Gen. xviii. 2). (1.) But others generally refer it to the day of His Humanity, and thus understand it of the day of His Passion, Crucifixion, and death. See S. Chrysostom, c. (2.) It is more simple to understand it of the day of His Incarnation. For all the Prophets and Patriarchs earnestly longed for the coming of Christ, to free them from their sins and from their imperfect state ( limbo ). "To see" (says John Alba) "is to enjoy the happiness and blessings brought by Christ." The word has often that meaning, as in the Psalm "to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living," i.e ., to enjoy it. He saw it. By faith, and again in a figure when he was commanded by God to offer up his son Isaac, which was a type of Christ's offering on the Cross. So S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine, and S. Bernard ( Serm. vi . de. Vigil Natalis ) adds that by smiting on his thigh he signified that Christ was to come from his race. (2.) He knew by prophetical revelation. But this would not be "seeing." (3.) The genuine meaning is, he saw from his own place ( in limbo ). He knew the day when Christ was incarnate and was born, not only from what Simeon told him, when he met him in the place below ( in limbo ), but also from what Anna the Prophetess, Zacharias, Anna the Virgin's Mother, and S. John the Baptist told him, but he saw it by intuitive perception. He saw all, just as the Blessed in heaven behold all things on earth and under the earth, and as S. Anselm saw with his eyes lifted up by God what was doing behind a wall. Abraham longingly desired to see this, as if present. For the promise that Christ should be born of him had been frequently made him by God. And it was due to him, in consequence of his faith, obedience, and many merits, that as the father of the faithful, who for so long a time, without any fault of his own, was so long detained in prison ( limbo ), most eagerly looking for Christ to deliver him, might for his own consolation, and that of his fellow-patriarchs, and in solace of their long and anxious expectation, know the very day when Christ was Incarnate and born. For two thousand years had he eagerly waited for Christ and sighed for His birth. And therefore God revealed it to him by His Spirit, and then Abraham and all the Saints in prison rejoiced and were glad. So Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. Lastly, the angels who comfort souls in Purgatory, much more consoled the souls of Abraham and the Patriarchs ( in limbo ), even as the same angels announced that much longed-for birth to the shepherds. Christ said this, (1.) To show that He was greater than Abraham, and that He was God, (2.) to show how highly He was valued, though absent, by Abraham, though the Jews despised Him when present among, them. (3.) And also to prick their consciences indirectly in this way: "Abraham had so great a longing for Me, but ye have rejected Me. Ye are therefore not true children of Abraham, but spurious and degenerate." He says "Abraham your father," whose children ye glory in being, though I do not glory in him, but he rather glories and exults in Me.* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 1, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 1, Art. 3]
Whether Anything False Can Come Under Faith?
Objection 1: It would seem that something false can come under faith. For faith is condivided with hope and charity. Now something false can come under hope, since many hope to have eternal life, who will not obtain it. The same may be said of charity, for many are loved as being good, who, nevertheless, are not good. Therefore something false can be the object of faith.
Obj. 2: Further, Abraham believed that Christ would be born, according to John 8:56: "Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it, and was glad." But after the time of Abraham, God might not have taken flesh, for it was merely because He willed that He did, so that what Abraham believed about Christ would have been false. Therefore the object of faith can be something false.
Obj. 3: Further, the ancients believed in the future birth of Christ, and many continued so to believe, until they heard the preaching of the Gospel. Now, when once Christ was born, even before He began to preach, it was false that Christ was yet to be born. Therefore something false can come under faith.
Obj. 4: Further, it is a matter of faith, that one should believe that the true Body of Christ is contained in the Sacrament of the altar. But it might happen that the bread was not rightly consecrated, and that there was not Christ's true Body there, but only bread. Therefore something false can come under faith.
_On the contrary,_ No virtue that perfects the intellect is related to the false, considered as the evil of the intellect, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. vi, 2). Now faith is a virtue that perfects the intellect, as we shall show further on (Q. 4, AA. 2, 5). Therefore nothing false can come under it.
_I answer that,_ Nothing comes under any power, habit or act, except by means of the formal aspect of the object: thus color cannot be seen except by means of light, and a conclusion cannot be known save through the mean of demonstration. Now it has been stated (A. 1) that the formal aspect of the object of faith is the First Truth; so that nothing can come under faith, save in so far as it stands under the First Truth, under which nothing false can stand, as neither can non-being stand under being, nor evil under goodness. It follows therefore that nothing false can come under faith.
Reply Obj. 1: Since the true is the good of the intellect, but not of the appetitive power, it follows that all virtues which perfect the intellect, exclude the false altogether, because it belongs to the nature of a virtue to bear relation to the good alone. On the other hand those virtues which perfect the appetitive faculty, do not entirely exclude the false, for it is possible to act in accordance with justice or temperance, while having a false opinion about what one is doing. Therefore, as faith perfects the intellect, whereas hope and charity perfect the appetitive part, the comparison between them fails.
Nevertheless neither can anything false come under hope, for a man hopes to obtain eternal life, not by his own power (since this would be an act of presumption), but with the help of grace; and if he perseveres therein he will obtain eternal life surely and infallibly.
In like manner it belongs to charity to love God, wherever He may be; so that it matters not to charity, whether God be in the individual whom we love for God's sake.
Reply Obj. 2: That "God would not take flesh," considered in itself was possible even after Abraham's time, but in so far as it stands in God's foreknowledge, it has a certain necessity of infallibility, as explained in the First Part (Q. 14, AA. 13, 15): and it is thus that it comes under faith. Hence in so far as it comes under faith, it cannot be false.
Reply Obj. 3: After Christ's birth, to believe in Him, was to believe in Christ's birth at some time or other. The fixing of the time, wherein some were deceived was not due to their faith, but to a human conjecture. For it is possible for a believer to have a false opinion through a human conjecture, but it is quite impossible for a false opinion to be the outcome of faith.
Reply Obj. 4: The faith of the believer is not directed to such and such accidents of bread, but to the fact that the true body of Christ is under the appearances of sensible bread, when it is rightly consecrated. Hence if it be not rightly consecrated, it does not follow that anything false comes under faith. _______________________
FOURTH
*S Part 4, Ques 52, Article 5
[III, Q. 52, Art. 5]
Whether Christ Descending into Hell Delivered the Holy Fathers from Thence?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ descending into hell did not deliver the holy Fathers from thence. For Augustine (Epist. ad Evod. clxiv) says: "I have not yet discovered what Christ descending into hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in Abraham's bosom, from whom I fail to see that He ever departed according to the beatific presence of His Godhead." But had He delivered them, He would have bestowed much upon them. Therefore it does not appear that Christ delivered the holy Fathers from hell.
Obj. 2: Further, no one is detained in hell except on account of sin. But during life the holy Fathers were justified from sin through faith in Christ. Consequently they did not need to be delivered from hell on Christ's descent thither.
Obj. 3: Further, if you remove the cause, you remove the effect. But that Christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away by the Passion, as stated above (Q. 49, A. 1). Consequently, the holy Fathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already quoted that when Christ descended into hell "He broke down the gate and 'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original sin."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4, ad 2), when Christ descended into hell He worked through the power of His Passion. But through Christ's Passion the human race was delivered not only from sin, but also from the debt of its penalty, as stated above (Q. 49, AA. 1, 3). Now men were held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways: first of all for actual sin which each had committed personally: secondly, for the sin of the whole human race, which each one in his origin contracts from our first parent, as stated in Rom. 5 of which sin the penalty is the death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as is evident from Gen. 2 and 3: because God cast out man from paradise after sin, having beforehand threatened him with death should he sin. Consequently, when Christ descended into hell, by the power of His Passion He delivered the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory, so as to be unable to see God in His Essence, wherein man's beatitude lies, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 3, A. 8). But the holy Fathers were detained in hell for the reason, that, owing to our first parent's sin, the approach to the life of glory was not opened. And so when Christ descended into hell He delivered the holy Fathers from thence. And this is what is written Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water." And (Col. 2:15) it is written that "despoiling the principalities and powers," i.e. "of hell, by taking out Isaac and Jacob, and the other just souls," "He led them," i.e. "He brought them far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven," as the gloss explains.
Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there against such as maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings before Christ's descent into hell. Hence shortly before the passage quoted he says: "Some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the saints of old, that on the Lord's coming into hell they were freed from their sufferings. But I fail to see how Abraham, into whose bosom the poor man was received, was ever in such sufferings." Consequently, when he afterwards adds that "he had not yet discovered what Christ's descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old," this must be understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings. Yet Christ bestowed something upon them as to their attaining glory: and in consequence He dispelled the suffering which they endured through their glory being delayed: still they had great joy from the very hope thereof, according to John 8:56: "Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day." And therefore he adds: "I fail to see that He ever departed, according to the beatific presence of His Godhead," that is, inasmuch as even before Christ's coming they were happy in hope, although not yet fully happy in fact.
Reply Obj. 2: The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the penalty of actual sins, but not from the penalty of original sin, whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of original sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh, according to Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification."
Reply Obj. 3: Directly Christ died His soul went down into hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained there; although they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell, because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory. _______________________
SIXTH
*Lapide
. Thou art not yet, c. So that Abraham on his part could have seen Thee, and rejoiced at the sight. Irenæus hence infers that Christ lived fifty years on earth ( adv. Hær. ii. 39, 40). But it is the common opinion that He was on earth for only thirty four (and those not complete) years. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius read forty years, but the common reading is fifty. The Jews seem to have been thinking of the jubilee. "Thou hast not reached one jubilee, how then canst Thou say that Thou hast seen Abraham, who lived forty jubilees before?" (So Severus of Antioch in Catena .) But Euthymius thinks that Christ seemed to the Jews, by reason of the maturity of His judgment and the gravity of His bearing, and also from the labours He had undergone in journeying and preaching, to be fifty years old. But you may easily say that the Jews, in order to avoid exception or mistake, put His age much higher than they knew He had attained to.*H Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.
Ver. 58. Before Abraham was made, I am. [4] Christ here speaks of his eternal existence as God. S. Aug. shews this by these very words, I am. He does not say, before Abraham was made, I was made: because, as the Son of God, he never was made: but I am, which shews his eternal divine nature. Wi.
*Lapide
. Jesus said, c. That is, I am God. The word am denotes eternity, which is ever present, and has no past or future. I am eternal, immutable, and ever the same. So S. Augustine, Bede, S. Gregory. I as God exceed the age of Abraham not by fifty years, but by infinite durations of years. For as Tertullian ( de Trinit .) says, unless He had been God, He could not, as being descended from Abraham, have been before him. Hear S. Augustine on this passage, " Before Abraham was made, that refers to human nature, but I am pertains to the Divine Substance; was made (Vulg.), because Abraham was a creature. He said not, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' but Before Abraham was made, I am. Nor did He say, 'Before Abraham was made, I was made.' For in the beginning God made heaven and earth; for in the beginning was the Word. Before Abraham was made, I am . Acknowledge the Creator, distinguish the creature. He who spake was made of the seed of Abraham; and in order that Abraham might he made, He was (existed) before Abraham."*Lapide
. Then they look up, c., as a blasphemer, who placed Himself above Abraham, and made Himself equal to God. Blasphemers were ordered to be stoned ( Lev 24:16 ). It is clear that these Jews were not those who were said to have believed in Him (as Theophylact supposes), but the others who were opposed to Christ. "And to what should such hardness betake itself but to stones?" says S. Augustine ( in loc .) "They sought to crush Him, whom they could not understand," says S. Gregory ( Hom. xviii.) But Jesus hid Himself, c. He made Himself invisible, and thus passed unharmed through the midst of them. So Leontius and others. S. Gregory says, "Had He willed to exercise His power, He would have bound them in their sins, or would have plunged them into the pains of eternal death. But He who came to suffer, would not exercise judgment." And S. Augustine, "He would rather commend to us His patience, than exercise His power. He forsakes them, since they would not accept His correction. He hides not Himself in a corner of the temple, as if afraid, or running into a cottage, or turning aside behind a wall or column: but by .His Divine Power making Himself invisible, He passed through their midst. As man He fled from the stones, but woe to them from whose stony hearts God flies away. Morally, we are taught by this example (says S. Gregory) humbly to avoid the anger of the proud, even when we have the power to resist them.* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 44, Article 3
[III, Q. 44, Art. 3]
Whether Christ Worked Miracles Fittingly on Men?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on men. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ worked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any miracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the faith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles, nor is it related of Him that He made wise men out of fools. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting manner.
Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), Christ worked miracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly, perfectly, and without any assistance. Now Christ did not always heal men suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written (Mk. 8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town; and, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And, looking up, he said: I see men as it were trees walking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly." It is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at first imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men unfittingly.
Obj. 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things which do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are not always the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (John 9:3): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind." It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to have done in the case of the man sick of the palsy (Matt. 9:2): the more that the healing of the body, being of less account than the forgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient argument for the power of forgiving sins.
Obj. 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Q. 43, A. 4). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed miraculously to tell no one, as appears from Matt. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26: the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked on them; thus it is related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering a man from the demons, He said to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee."
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak."
_I answer that,_ The means should be proportionate to the end. Now Christ came into the world and taught in order to save man, according to John 3:17: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him." Therefore it was fitting that Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular, should prove Himself to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of all.
Reply Obj. 1: The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for which Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part, which is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of righteousness: the former of which presupposes the latter, since, as it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." Now it was unfitting that man should be made righteous unless he willed: for this would be both against the nature of righteousness, which implies rectitude of the will, and contrary to the very nature of man, which requires to be led to good by the free-will, not by force. Christ, therefore, justified man inwardly by the Divine power, but not against man's will. Nor did this pertain to His miracles, but to the end of His miracles. In like manner by the Divine power He infused wisdom into the simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to them (Luke 21:15): "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" which "all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay." And this, in so far as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a miracle, but only as regards the outward action--namely, in so far as men saw that those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and constancy. Wherefore it is written (Acts 4:13) that the Jews, "seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men . . . wondered."--And though such like spiritual effects are different from visible miracles, yet do they testify to Christ's doctrine and power, according to Heb. 2:4: "God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost."
Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man, principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on Matt. 9:9, "He rose up and followed Him," says: "Such was the splendor and majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in His human countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him at first sight." And on Matt. 21:12, "(Jesus) cast out all them that sold and bought," the same Jerome says: "Of all the signs worked by our Lord, this seems to me the most wondrous--that one man, at that time despised, could, with the blows of one scourge, cast out such a multitude. For a fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His Godhead shone in His countenance." And Origen says on John 2:15 that "this was a greater miracle than when He changed water into wine, for there He shows His power over inanimate matter, whereas here He tames the minds of thousands of men." Again, on John 18:6, "They went backward and fell to the ground," Augustine says: "Though that crowd was fierce in hate and terrible with arms, yet did that one word . . . without any weapon, smite them through, drive them back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden in that flesh." Moreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30) --namely, that Jesus, "passing through the midst of them, went His way," on which Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): "That He stood in the midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized by them, shows the power of His Godhead"; and, again, that which is written John 8:59, "Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple," on which Theophylact says: "He did not hide Himself in a corner of the Temple, as if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to those who were threatening Him, He passed through the midst of them."
From all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed, changed the minds of men by His Divine power, not only by the bestowal of righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains to the end of miracles, but also by outwardly drawing men to Himself, or by terrifying or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous itself.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power, but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in healing the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by way of command, but also by applying something pertaining to His human nature. Hence on Luke 4:40, "He, laying His hands on every one of them, healed them," Cyril says: "Although, as God, He might, by one word, have driven out all diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh was endowed with a healing virtue." And on Mk. 8:23, "Spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him," etc., Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] says: "He spat and laid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for the hand signifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which proceeds from the mouth." Again, on John 9:6, "He made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man," Augustine says: "Of His spittle He made clay--because 'the Word was made flesh.'" Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of "the slime of the earth."
It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on John 2:10, "Every man at first setteth forth good wine," Chrysostom says: "Christ's miracles are such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor and usefulness." Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on Matt. 8:15, "She arose and ministered to them," Jerome says: "Health restored by our Lord returns wholly and instantly."
There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the case of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] says. Or as Bede observes on Mk. 8:23: "Whom He might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little by little, to show the extent of human blindness, which hardly, and that only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of His grace."
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now "the works of God are perfect" (Deut. 32:4). But nothing is perfect except it attain its end. Now the end of the outward healing worked by Christ is the healing of the soul. Consequently it was not fitting that Christ should heal a man's body without healing his soul. Wherefore on John 7:23, "I have healed the whole man on a Sabbath day," Augustine says: "Because he was cured, so as to be whole in body; he believed, so as to be whole in soul." To the man sick of the palsy it is said specially, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," because, as Jerome observes on Matt. 9:5, 6: "We are hereby given to understand that ailments of the body are frequently due to sin: for which reason, perhaps, first are his sins forgiven, that the cause of the ailment being removed, health may return." Wherefore, also (John 4:14), it is said: "Sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee." Whence, says Chrysostom, "we learn that his sickness was the result of sin."
Nevertheless, as Chrysostom says on Matt. 9:5: "By how much a soul is of more account than a body, by so much is the forgiving of sins a greater work than healing the body; but because the one is unseen He does the lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater and more unseen."
Reply Obj. 4: On Matt. 9:30, "See that no man know this," Chrysostom says: "If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the glory of God' (cf. Mk. 5:19; Luke 8:39), that is not contrary to this. For He instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account: but if the glory be referred to God, then we must not forbid, but command, that it be done." _______________________
FOURTH