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 The same day Jesus going out of the house, sat by the sea side.
Ver. 1. On the same day Jesus left the house, in which he had performed the miracle, and delivered the preceding discourse, and sat himself down on the shore of the sea of Galilee, where multitudes crowded unto him.
*Lapide
CHAPTER 13 At that time, c. Syriac, by the sea shore : When Christ, after His manner, had preached in the house, which He had hired for His dwelling in Capernaum, as I have said on c. iv. 13, He sent away the multitudes to attend to themselves and their affairs, and that He might refresh Himself and His disciples with rest and food. Bye and bye, since He knew that the multitudes were about to come to Him in such numbers that the house could not contain them, He went out to the wide, open shore of the Sea of Galilee; and there uttered the following parables. He went up into a ship : from whence, as from a pulpit, He preached to the people assembled on the shore. A sower went out to sow : Gr. ό σπείρων , i.e ., sowing , Observe: Appositely are gospel doctrine and preaching compared to seed, and the harvest proceeding from it. For, as for the natural harvest there is need of seed, earth, sun, rain and wind, so also is there need of such things for the spiritual harvest. The seed is the word of God, or the gospel, and the preaching of it. The earth is the free will of all who hear. The sun is preventing grace, illuminating and inflaming the free will, that it may receive the Word of God so as from it to produce the fruits of charity and all virtues. The rain is grace, watering and promoting these good acts and motions of the free will. The winds are temptations which, by agitating them, cause them to take deeper root, and strengthen them. Lastly, there is need of patience, Gr. ύπομονὴ , i.e ., endurance in the labours and troubles of ploughing, sowing, c., and long waiting for the reward and fruit of the harvest. Observe: the end and scope of this parable is, that Christ would teach that He Himself is the Sower, the preacher of the gospel upon earth, that is to say, among men, but with different results among different people. For, first, not all who hear the gospel accept it; as seed, although sown in the earth, does not everywhere strike root in the earth. 2. Not all who believe persevere in faith, but some fall away under temptation; like seed which sprouts in stony ground, quickly withers by the sun's heat. 3. Not all, who persevere in faith, bring forth the fruit of good works; just as thorns choke seed springing up well in otherwise good ground, and prevent it from bearing fruit. 4. These things happen, not through the fault of the seed, i.e ., of the doctrine, but of the earth. It is the fault of the hearers, and that in various ways. It is partly on account of the rocks, partly on account of the thorns. The rock is the flesh, the thorns are the world, the highway is the habit of a worldly and licentious life, where the birds of the air, that is the devils, like most eager and voracious devourers of souls, snatch away the doctrine that has been preached, from the mind and memory, whilst they draw off those who are by the wayside, i.e ., men who are given up to the customs and business of the world, as well as those who are wandering, who are slothful and curious, from considering and penetrating into the doctrine heard, to their accustomed vanities. 5. The seed in the good ground is that which those receive in a good heart, who begin to ruminate upon it, and profit by it; they are in the best way, who apply themselves with all their might, to arrive at perfection in virtue. 6. Some seed bears less fruit, some greater, some the greatest. That is on account either of the greater sowing, i.e ., preaching and illumination of spiritual things, and the assistance of grace, or on account of greater efforts and co-operation of free will with grace. This is the sum of the whole parable, from which it is easy to understand it in all its parts. I will handle them briefly, one by one. Moraliter : Let the preacher with Christ, who came forth from the house, even from heaven, impelled by the force of love, to the earth, go forth from the house of contemplation into the field of preaching, that what he has drank from God in prayer, he may pour forth upon the people, and preach, not so much by words, as by the example of a holy life. Again, he invokes God that what he speaks in the ear, God may speak in the heart. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside, namely, on the path or boundary, conterminous with the field, which is constantly worn and trodden down by the feet of passengers, and is therefore unsuitable for the reception of seed, and exposes it naked, to be carried off by the birds. We see a gradation here, for from the unsuitable ground for seed, He rises gradually to the less unsuitable, to the more suitable, and the most suitable. The most unsuitable earth for seed is that by the wayside. The less suitable is the rocky ground. The more fit is the good ground which produces thorns. The most fit is that which is entirely good, rich, moist earth. Moreover, the way is a mind worn, and dried up by evil thoughts. Such a mind does not receive the doctrine of the gospel, which is contrary to its lusts; it does not perceive, nor understand it, because it is wholly intent upon fleshly allurements. Whence, says the Gloss, such are those, who neither are pricked by preaching, nor begin to do well. But other fell on stony ground , c. This seed could not strike deep root, therefore it began to germinate and spring up before the proper time. For that which is quickly produced, quickly perishes. He adds the cause. When the sun was risen, they were scorched, Gr. ε̉καυματίσθη , i.e ., were burnt up , both seeds and germs, by the burning heat of the sun. And because they had no root, they withered away. They had but a little earth, which was succeeded by the rock. Hence, partly from want of moisture, partly by the burning rays of the sun, they were dried up. The rock in this place, says Rabanus, means the hardness of an insolent mind, in which there is no deep mildness of an obedient soul. Whence, such are only pleased by the sweetness of the word, which they hear, and of heavenly promises for a short time; but they strike not the root of desire unto salvation. Therefore by the heat of the sun i.e ., the fury of persecution, are they burnt up, through impatience, because their mind does not firmly cleave to the word of God, and they lose the greenness of faith, says the Interlinear. S. Chrysostom says, "With regard to souls, that which is rock, may become good ground, that which is wayside, not trodden down; and the thorns may be destroyed. Christ was speaking to all, even as if He were providing for the future, how He might declare what I ought to do, and have not done. Hereby He teaches His disciples not to be slothful." But other fell among thorns, c., i.e., in land producing thorns. And they grew, Gr. α̉νέβησαν , i.e., they ascended, i.e., they grew more quickly than the good seed, which rises slowly, and by degrees. For tares sprig up easily, wheat with difficulty. Therefore the tares choked the wheat just as it was coming into ear. The tares did this, both because they drew away the moisture and nourishment to their own roots: as well as because they deprived them of air and room to grow. But other fell on good ground , c. (Arab.) For one a hundred, for one sixty, and for another thirty. Good ground, if it be well cultivated, for one grain produces a hundred; other ground, less rich, sixty; other, more sterile, thirty. The good ground is a faithful and devoted conscience. Observe, only the fourth part of the seed, namely, that which fell on the good ground, produced fruit; the three other divisions of the seed perished. Thus, but few profit by the word of preaching. By far the greater number who hear the word bring forth no fruit. He that hath ears of hearing (Greek) let him hear. Christ makes use of this expression when the subject is obscure and symbolical, or when he would arouse the attention of his hearers. Ears to hear : He speaks of one who hears diligently the words of Christ, in order that he may receive them, and ruminate upon them, and obey them. For many heard Christ out of curiosity, for the sake of listening to something new. Such had not ears for hearing. So, even now, there are many who hear sermons for the sake of their eloquence not that they may amend their lives. And the disciples , c. They meant to say, the uninstructed multitudes do not receive parabolic and symbolic discourses. Why, then, dost thou not speak to them in plain words, that they may understand them? He answered and said , c. (Arab), ye have been endowed with the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, and they have not been endowed. The reason why Christ spake to the multitude in parables was, because many among them were as yet unfitted for receiving the heavenly doctrine of the Gospel; and some, indeed, did not believe yea, some derided. The scribes also reviled Christ, and accounted Him for a false prophet. Wherefore they had not ears of hearing such as Christ required. Christ, therefore, urges them to take hearing ears, and examine carefully His parables, and ask from Him the meaning of them, that thus they may make themselves fitted to receive the preaching of the Gospel. This if they would do, He promises clearly to expound what He speaks in parables. Moreover, Christ indicates that this capability of receiving the Word cannot be obtained by our own power, but must be humbly asked of God. For this is the gift of God, which He gave to the disciples of Christ, and did not give to the rest, but left them in their blindness. It is as though He said, "Yours, O ye Apostles, is this grace and happiness, that God has given you faith in Me, and that, for this reason, I clearly tell you of mysteries, whilst I speak to others only in parables. For faith is the gift of God. Do ye, therefore, render perpetual thanks to God for this, and pray for others, that God would give them ears of hearing, as He has given you. For then will I explain My parables to them, as I shall explain them to you." Whence Mark has (Mar 4:11 .), To them which are without, all things are done in parables. That is, to the unbelieving who are outside of faith and of the Church, all things are spoken and done by Me, parabolically, i.e ., obscurely, by symbols and enigmas, that they may not despise and cavil at them, for as Bede says, "Not only the things which the Lord spoke, but also the things which He did, were parables," i.e ., signs of mysteries, hidden from the unbelieving Jews, according to the words, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine." Mark adds, that seeing they may see, and not perceive , c. He means, they are blinded and obstinate, and thus they persevere in their blindness, and will not accept the light of truth, which I offer them. For this blindness is the punishment of past sins, which they have committed. All this will be more plain from what follows. Observe: the word that , as Mark says, that seeing they way see, and not perceive , does not signify cause and intention, but consequence and effect. For Christ, in speaking parabolically, did not intend absolutely to blind them, but only to permit what was the consequence of His parables namely, that the Jews, being blinded with envy and lust, although they saw so many miracles of Christ, and heard His heavenly wisdom, yet would not believe, nor understand what they saw and heard, but would be as though they had neither seen nor heard. For he that hath , c.; Arabic, And he who has anything, it shalt be given and added, c. The sentence is a species of proverb, as Salmeron and others say. It is most true: for to the rich things are given, from the poor there is always taking away. Similarly, God heaps upon His faithful and elect people (such as the Apostles were) new graces and benefits day by day, so that they abound in virtue and holiness: but from the unbelieving, the ungrateful, and the unworthy, He gradually takes away His gifts, both of nature and grace. The meaning is: 1. He who has faith, to Him shall be given the knowledge of the mysteries of God's kingdom; for these cannot be known without faith. He, therefore, who hath not faith, from him shall be taken away the good which he hath. As though He said, To you, O ye Apostles, because ye believe in Me as the Messiah, it is given to hear the mysteries of God and of Heaven, by means ot which ye are every day advanced more and more in hope and the love of God. But from the Scribes, who will not believe in Me, God will take away the little knowledge which they do possess of heavenly things. Yea, he will deprive them of Church, kingdom, priesthood, and country; and, as profane and perfidious, they will wander in misery over the whole earth. Thus SS. Jerome and Hilary and Euthym. explain. 2. They who have ears of hearing, who come to Me with sincere affection, with a pure desire of faith and truth, to them I will clearly reveal celestial verities ; and I will assist them in the path of virtue, by which they may arrive at the kingdom of God. But they who have not this pure desire of the truth, but indulge in their own lusts and errors as ye do, O ye Jews and Scribes from them shall be taken away, by degrees, that little knowledge of Divine things which they do possess, and they shall become wholly blinded. Therefore, to you, O ye Jews, I, Christ, speak not clearly, but darkly in parables. As Theophylact says, "For he who hath a small spark of goodness, and does not stir it up by means of the Spirit and spiritual things must of necessity have it extinguished." 3. S. Augustine (lib. 1, de Doctr. Christ. c. 1) explains the word have to mean use, and applies it to preachers. Thus, the preacher who has doctrine i.e ., who uses the doctrine given him by God, and diligently preaches it, and communicates it to others; doctrine and words, which he may speak and preach, will never fail him, for God will suggest them. But if anyone does not make use of doctrine, he will gradually forget it and lose it. In the same manner, the word have means to use in c. xxv. 29. Thus we find by experience that zealous preachers, the more they preach, the more they abound in word and spirit; like fountains, from which however much water flows, just as much do they always receive. Therefore I speak unto them , c. Behold how Christ here plainly declares the reasons why He spoke to the Jews and Pharisees in parables. It was because they had been previously unwilling to hear, i.e ., to understand, obey, and believe Christ when He spake plainly of repentance and the way to the kingdom of Heaven. They deserved, therefore, that Christ should speak to them obscurely and by parables. For He taught at Capernaum where were rich merchants, who trusted in their riches; where also were Scribes and Pharisees; these men despised, yea even derided and blasphemed, Christ's heavenly doctrine concerning contempt of riches, humility, poverty, and penance. Wherefore, Christ purposely betook Himself to parables, which (forasmuch as they did not understand them) they could not deride. Therefore He spake unto them in parables; not because they were absolutely reprobate, but because they were unworthy and ungrateful. Thus SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, and Bede. Nevertheless, I confess there were intermingled with this multitude of unbelieving Jews many who were desirous of hearing Christ for the sake of salvation; but because they were mixed up with the unbelieving, who were Christ's enemies, it was given to them to hear only in parables; that by them, even when they did not understand them, they might at least conceive admiration and reverence for Christ, which would at length lead them on to a better position. Yea, as S. Chrysostom says, to all the Scribes and Pharisees, unworthy and obstinate as they were, Christ spake in parables, with this intention and this end in view that He might instil into them a sincere desire of searching and believing in Christ, and that having suffered a temporary obscurity in parables which they did not comprehend, they might the more eagerly desire Christ, the true light, and ask of Him the explanation of the parables. This is hinted at in Mark (iv. 33). And with many parables He spake the word unto them, as they were able to bear it, that (namely) they who were able to understand and receive them, might receive them; but they who could not, might be stimulated to search out the meaning. For this people's heart is waxed gross , c. He cites Isaiah ( Isa 6:9-10 ), where instead of make fat , our translation has, blind thou i.e., thou shalt blind (Chaldean, infatuate ) the heart of this people . The Hebrew is השמן , hashmen , i.e., make gross , or fat their heart , and make heavy their ears . Where observe that this blinding, making gross and hardening, is spoken of God deserting and leaving in his blindness the man who is made blind and hardened; as well as of the man who, of his own free will, blinds, makes gross, and hardens himself, by cleaving to his darkness and his sins, and shutting his eyes to the Divine light and the doctrine of Christ. Where the LXX (which the Vulgate follows) reads with different points, huscheman , and translate with a clearer meaning the heart of this people has been made gross , namely, directly by themselves, indirectly by God; especially because the preceding words signify that they had not been so much blinded by God as by their own covetousness, pride, malice, hatred and envy against Christ. See what I have said on Isaiah vi., where I have expounded the passage at length. But blessed are your eyes, for they see (Arabic, see through ), c. Eyes and ears of the mind as well as of the body. Blessed are ye, O ye Apostles, because ye receive the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, both with the exterior eyes and ears of the body, and the interior ears and eyes of the soul. With the eyes of the body ye behold My sacred actions and miracles: but, what is of far more consequence, with the eyes and ears of your minds, enlightened by God, ye believe and understand the same. This do not the Jews: for the soul, equally with the body, has its own eyes and ears yea, the soul is all eye or ear. Verily, I say unto you, that many prophels , c. For, as Christ said ( Joh 8:56 ), "Abraham rejoiced to see My day; he saw it and was glad." Here is the voice and prayer of Jacob: "I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord." (Gen. xlix. 18). Then also Isa 45:8 . "Drop down dew, ye heavens from above, and let the clouds rain the righteous one. Let the earth open and bring forth the Saviour." (Vulg.) There was the same feeling and desire to all the patriarchs, all the prophets, all the saints of the Old Testament namely, to see and hear Messiah, the Redeemer, Teacher, and Saviour of the world. It is said that S. Augustine had three wishes: the first to see Christ speaking in the flesh; the second to behold Rome in the splendour of an imperial triumph; the third, to hear Paul thundering forth in his preaching. Many have the same wish at this present time. Hear ye therefore , c. Cometh the evil one , Gr. ό πονηρός , that is, the devil . S. Luke ( Luk 8:12 ) gives this more clearly, The seed is the Word of God. Those by the wayside are they that hear: then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe aid be saved. Appositely is the word of God, or the gospel, and the preaching of it compared to the sowing of seed. 1. Because as the word from the mouth of the preacher, so is seed scattered by the hand of the sower. 2. As the word is received by the ear and the heart of the hearer, so is seed received into the bosom of the earth, that it may produce fruit. 3. As seed is the parent and origin of all corn, so is the word of God the parent of all good works. 4. As the earth without seed produces only nettles, tares and thorns, so also does the mind of man without the word of God produce nothing but what is vain and noxious. 5. As seed, in order that it may fructify, must be sown in ground neither hard nor stony, dry or thorny, but in moist or good earth, so also the word of God ought to be received in tender, pure hearts, and inclined to piety, that it may bring forth spiritual fruit: this is what James says ( Jam 1:21 ), "receive with meekness the engrafted word." Again, Palladius ( l 1 de re Rust. Tit. 35) suggests a remedy to prevent seeds being destroyed by moles, mice, ants, c., that the seeds should be previously steeped in bitter substances. So also Pliny says that chick-peas keep caterpillars from herbs, and adds, "if the seed of herbs be steeped in the juice of wormwood, it will keep the herbs from all noxious animals." In like manner, in order that we may keep the seed of God's word in our hearts, untouched by the gnawing of pleasures, it must be macerated by sobriety, fasting, and other austerities, for these preserve the mind from the corruption of fleshly delights. 6. As the earth ought to be ploughed, manured, harrowed, that the seed may germinate, so also ought the heart of man to be cleared, and cultivated by laborious acts of penance, mortification and other virtues, that the word of God may produce fruit in it. This is what Isaiah says (xxxii. 20.) "Blessed are ye which sow beside all waters, sending forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass." See what is there said. 7. In order that seed may germinate, it requires the rain and the sun; so also that the word of God may strike root in the soul, it ought to be watered by grace, and warmed by heavenly love. This is what Isaiah says ( Isa l61:11), "For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth: so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations." This is effected by the word of the Gospel scattered by Christ and His Apostles. 8. As seed that is sown in the earth must decay, burst and die, that it may be fruitful: so also that the word may fructify in the heart it must be, as it were, resolved, bruised, and die by meditation; and it must likewise bruise and mortify the heart itself, according to that saying of Christ (Joh 12:24 .) "Verily, verily, I say unto, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Thus likewise must the faithful soul suffer many adversities before it can bring forth fruit unto God. 9. The seed must first strike root in the earth, then spring up in stalks and branches, next bud into flowers, and lastly, produce fruit from them; so also must the word of God first be rooted in the soul, then bring forth the germs of good thoughts, and the flowers of good desires, that it may at length produce the fruit of good works. 10. The entire power of a tree or plant is in the seed: for from it the plant and all its parts and members, which it possesses in an analogous manner to the limbs of men and animals, proceed. Wherefore many think that seeds have souls, as Aristotle hints ( l. 2. de gener. anim. c. 1.) For when seed is cast into the earth, by and bye, as though it were living, it produces living germs. In like manner the whole force of virtue and perfection, whereby a man becomes spiritual, holy, and perfect, is contained in the word of God, as it were in seed. And this, unfolding itself and germinating in the mind produces all virtuous actions. 11. Different seeds produce different fruits; as the seed of a pear tree produces pears; the seed of wheat, wheat; the seed of barley produces barley, and so on. Thus different sentences of the Gospel bring forth different affections in the soul. The precepts of humility bring forth humility, the precepts of repentance, repentance. 12. As there is a father and a mother of every child, as for the production of fruit, there must be the earth and the seed; so in like manner, for good works there must be the concurrence of the word of God with that which is internal, i.e ., the free will of man, which must co-operate with the word of God. But this must be in such manner that the will must derive all its power of producing spiritual works from the word and grace of God, in order that they may be pleasing unto God, and may merit eternal life. ( Conr. Trident. sess. 6.) In like manner the fruit derives liberty, or that it should be a free work and not compulsory nor done of necessity, from free will. For the interior word, which God speaks in the soul, stirring it up and strengthening it for acts of penance, charity, religion, c., is nothing else but the grace of God itself, illuminating the understanding, and strengthening the affection, or the will, and inflaming it to the Divine works of virtue. This interior word, or grace, God is wont to add to the external word of preaching, What therefore the preacher speaks outwardly in the ear, God must speak inwardly in the heart if it is to bear fruit. In fine, as from the better seed, and the more excellent land is produced better fruit, for example, better wheat, better barley, so in like manner from the more powerful preaching, and the grace of God, and the more fervent co-operation of free will are produced more excellent acts of virtue, and more heroic works. Hear what Pliny says ( 1. 24. 18.) He prescribes the following rules for sowing. 1. Let the sowing in moist places be performed quickly, the reason is that the seed may not putrefy with the wet: more slowly in dry ground, that the rain may follow, lest it should lie too long, and not be able to germinate. 2. It is part of the art of sowing to scatter the seed evenly. The hand ought to correspond with the step, and always with the right foot. 3. The seed must not be transferred from cold places to warm, not from ground where it ripens quickly to ground where it ripens late. 4. Sow abundantly in rich soil, more sparingly in poor soil. 5. This precept should be observed, do not exhaust your crops; for as Columella says, it is evident that crops will become exhausted by sowing the land too frequently with them. All these things are mystically adapted by preachers for sowing the Gospel. And understandeth it not, does not perceive the meaning of the Word of God; because some other occupation, desire, or care, or the devil himself, distracts the mind to think of other things. This is he who is sown by the wayside. The heart of such a man is signified by that portion of the ground which is by the wayside, or the path itself. For as seed failing in the way, or by the side of the way, is rejected by the hard and trodden ground, and is snatched up by the birds; so, in like manner, the seed of the Word of God is not received into a heart which has become hardened by a habit of sin, but is immediately carried away by the devil impelling the heart to its accustomed sins. Such an one, therefore, cannot really be compared to ground at all, but to a way ; he has the name and character, not of a hearer, but of a despiser of the Word of God. Now the inaptitude for seed of land trodden down in a way may be removed, if it be cultivated by the plough and the mattock; and if a hedge be placed so as to exclude those who tread it down. Thus, likewise, the unfitness of a heart that is hardened by habits of vice may be taken away by compunction, which may cut and mollify the hardness of the heart: and if it be broken by the mattock of continence which weakens vicious desires, and brings them into subjection to right reason and the law of God. But hath no root in himself , c. This is the second condition of those who receive the Word. It is better than that condition of ground which preceded; for this is ground sufficiently soft for the seed to be received, and to sprout, though it is only for a short time. The meaning therefore is, The heart of that hearer who hears the Word of God, and with joy receives it in his mind, meditates upon it, and approves of it according to those words of the Psalmist, "The statutes of the Lord are right, and rejoice the heart" is like the seed sown on stony ground. This seed quickly springs up, that is, in pious affection for the faith, and other works of religion. But because there is only little earth in the heart, and much rock that is, because there is more of a depraved habit in a heart that has become hardened by pleasures than of a disposition to piety this seed of God's Word is unable to take deep root in such a heart. It is temporary, i.e ., it is not constant in the faith, but only believes for a little time, as the Arabic translates. It perceives the Word of God to be opposed to its lusts and vices; so that, like hard and rocky ground, it rejects it. Whence Luke says (viii. 14), These are they who for a time believe, and in time of temptation fall away; i.e ., from the Word and faith of God, or, certainly, from His law, which faith declares is to be followed. Wherefore, when tribulation arises from private persons, or public persecutions which tend to deprive them of fife, or the riches and pleasures which they love; and when this is in consequence of the Word and faith of God, immediately they are scandalized , or as the Syriac translates, they are offended , and fall away, or apostatize from the profession of the faith. S. Gregory gives an example ( Hom . 15 in Evang .): "The rocky ground had no moisture, because it did not bring what it had caused to sprout to the fruit of perseverance. For many persons, when they hear the Word against avarice, hate the same avarice, and praise contempt of all things; but by-and-by, when the mind sees what it desires, it forgets what it praised. Many, when they hear the Word against luxury, not only do not desire to perpetrate fleshly pollutions, but are even ashamed of what they have perpetrated; but as soon as the fair appearance of the flesh is present to their eyes, the mind is carried away, and they are as though they had never made resolutions against those desires. For often we have compunction for our faults, and yet, after weeping, return to the same faults." But that which is sown among thorns , c. This is the third sort or condition of ground receiving seed, far better than the second condition, in as much as thorns offer less hindrance than rocks to seeds to germinate. This ground then denotes the heart of a hearer, which is beset with riches and worldly cares, as it were thorns. These destroy and choke the growing, seed of the word of God, before it can bring forth the ripe fruit of virtue. Observe: riches are aptly compared to thorns, because like thorns they distract, prick, and torment the mind so that it is not pleasing to a rich man to think often of Divine things. Hear S. Jerome: "To me it seems that the words spoken literally to Adam, Among thorns and thistles thou shalt eat thy bread, signify mystically, that whosoever shall give himself up to the pleasures and cares of this world, shall eat heavenly bread and the true food, among thorns." And S. Gregory ( Hom. 15 . in Evang .): "Who would ever believe me if I wished to interpret thorns to mean riches, especially since the former prick, the latter give pleasure? And yet riches are thorns, because they lacerate the mind with the punctures of their thoughts, and when they draw to sin they inflict as it were a bloody wound." Care of the world , i.e. of things temporal, such as the care of a wife or family. Such things tear the mind, i.e ., distract, trouble, and wound it. But on the other hand the care of salvation and of things divine causes the mind to be collected, calm, sound and flourishing. Hear S. Gregory, The cares of the world choke, because they strangle the throat of the mind with importunate thoughts: and because they will not suffer good desires to enter the mind, they as it were cut off the breath of life. We must observe also that there are two things which Christ joins to riches, namely cares and pleasures: because in truth the mind is oppressed by care, and by abundance it becomes dissolute. Deceitfulness, i.e. the seduction of riches. Riches are deceitful, because they draw away the mind from God and salvation, to vain and hurtful wealth, which is often a cause of many sins and of damnation, when it is acquired by all sorts of means. They are deceitful therefore, because they promise and perform not. They promise joy and pleasure, but instead they often hurry men into the eternal pains of hell. Hear what S. Gregory says, "riches are deceitful because they cannot long abide with us, and because they do not drive out the poverty of our souls. Those only are the true riches which enrich us with virtues. If therefore, brethren beloved, ye desire to be rich, strive for the heavenly kingdom. If ye love the glory of dignities, hasten to be enrolled in the senate of the Angels, which is above." That which is sown in the good ground , c. "The good ground," says S. Thomas ( in Catena ex Remigio ): "The good ground is the faithful conscience of the elect, or the mind of the saints, which receives the Word of God with joy and desire and devotion of heart, and manfully keeps it in prosperity and adversity, and leads it on to the future, whence it follows, 'and brings forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirtyfold.'" Understandeth it , c. i.e ., considers it in his mind, ruminates upon it, penetrates it, proves, tastes, retains it. The fruit is that both of good works as well as of their corresponding reward and glory in Heaven. Whence Luke adds, with patience , Gr. ε̉ν ύπομονη̃ , i.e , with long-suffering, after the manner of a husbandman patiently awaiting, after his sowing, the fruit and heavenly harvest of his labours and good works. "The good ground," says S. Gregory, "brings forth fruit through patience. The grapes are trodden by the heels of men, and flow into wine-juice; olives are expressed by beatings, and leave their lees, and produce the fatness of olive oil; by the threshing of the floor the grain is separated from the chaff, and when winnowed is carried into the granary, and so on." Hence S. Bonaventura says, that a good hearer of God's Word gives himself up entirely to it, together with all the faculties of his soul namely, his understanding, his wiill or affection, and his memory. He serves the Word of God with his understanding and will, because he receives it in an honest and good heart: with his memory, because he retains the word: with his powers of working and endurance, because he brings forth fruit with patience. And brings forth some an hundredfold , c. "We must observe," says S. Jerome, "that like as in the bad ground there were three different sorts namely, by the wayside, the rocky, and the thorny places so in the good ground there is a threefold diversity. And in the one as well as in the other, it is not the substance which is changed, but the will; and so it is the heart of the unbelieving as well as of the believing which receives the seed." Moreover, the greatest fruit of God's Word, as it were the greatest fruit of seed is a hundredfold, as if from a single grain a harvest of a hundred grains were gathered, as was Isaac's case ( Gen 26:12 ). The medium fruit is called sixtyfold; the lowest thirtyfold. A definite number is put for an indefinite; otherwise He might have added, brings forth some fortyfold, some twenty fold, and so on. Whence, in opposition to Jovinian and Calvin, the inequality of merit and consequently of the reward, of good works in Heaven is rightly proved. So S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 45), S. Augustine ( de S. Virgin. c. 46), Nazianzen (Orat. 28), and others. For the Fathers, however Calvin may deride and exclaim, apply these words especially to diverse states. 1. S. Jerome, on this passage ( lib . 1, contra Jovin ), and S. Athanasius ( Epist. ad Ammon .), and others assign the hundredfold fruit to virgins; the sixtyfold to widows; the thirtyfold to those who live in honest and holy wedlock. 2. S. Cyprian ( l. de Hab. Virg .) and S. Augustine ( l. 1, de quest. Evang. quest. 9, tom 4) assign the hundredfold to martyrs, the sixty to virgins, the thirtyfold to those who are married. Hear what S. Augustine says: "I assert that the hundredfold belongs to martyrs, on account of their holiness of life, or contempt of death; the sixty fold to virgins, on account of interior quiet, because they do not need to fight against fleshly habits for rest is wont to be granted to soldiers who are past sixty years of age; the thirtyfold to the married, because thirty is the age of warriors for those have a sharper conflict, that they may not be overcome of lust." 3. Euthymius and Theophylact assign the thirtyfold to beginners, the sixty to those who have made some progress, the hundredfold to the perfect. So also Nazianzen ( Orat. 28.) When a man proceeds, saith he, from thirty to sixty, he finishes with a hundred, as Isaac did (Gen. xxvi.) And he sings the Psalms of Degrees, going from strength to strength, and placing the Ascensions in his heart (Psa 84 .) Another parable put He forth , c. The Syriac adds, enigmatically. This means it is done in the kingdom of Heaven in the same way that it is done in a field when a man sows his seed, and his enemy sows tares over it. Wherefore Mark has (iv. 26.) So is the kingdom of God, as if a man cast seed into the earth, and while men slept , c. For the whole parable is compared with the whole of the things signified, not part with part: for otherwise the sower would not be like to a kingdom but to a king, the King of Heaven. Whilst men slept , c. That is to say by night, whilst men were sleeping, his enemy came unknown to everyone. He was envious of the prosperous crops of his rival, and in order to ruin them, he sowed tares among them. The expression, whilst men slept, adds to the elegance of the parable: for those who are envious are accustomed to frame such plots against those who sleep. Symbolically, S. Jerome and S. Augustine understand this sleeping to mean negligence and carelessness on the part of bishops and pastors of the Church. Or they understand it of the death of the Apostles, on which the heretics took occasion to sow the tares of their heresies and wickednesses. Hence let pastors learn to watch over their flocks. "The life of mortals is a watch." For as Augustine says, "To sleep more than to watch is the life of dormice rather than of men." Tares, the Hebrew Gospel reads, הרולים charulim i.e., nettles, thistles. The word in Greek is zizania, a word peculiar to the Gospels, unknown to Cicero and Demosthenes, and signifying every kind of worthless and noxious weed. All impurity in seed is called zizania, as S. Augustine says. Tertullian ( de prescript. hæret. c. 31) interprets zizania to mean wild oats . "In the parable," he says, "The Lord first sowed his good seed, and it was afterwards that the devil sowed the spurious seed of his barren crop." Whence he gathers that the fact of heresy being later in time is a mark of falsehood. Hence too ( l. de arima c 16.) he calls the sower of tares "the nocturnal interpolator of evil seed." Zizania then, or tares are whatsoever is injurious to the crops, or inimical to wheat, as darnel, for instance. Hear Pliny ( l 18. c . 17.) "I should reckon darnel and thistles and thorns and burrs, no less than brambles, among the diseases of the crops rather than among the pests of the ground." Some are of opinion that zizania is a Syriac word. Others derive it from the Chaldee zyz , an appearance, a figure. For it has the appearance of nourishing corn, but is not. The Germans call zizania, droncacert, because it makes people drunk: it also gives vertigo and stupefaction to those who eat it. Hence zizania signifies mystically heretics and sinners, especially those who corrupt others by word or example, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Gregory teach. For zizania injure the wheat, and choke and kill it, because they draw away nourishment from it, and so as it were corrupt and strangle the wheat. This is Christ's second parable of the tares, by which He tacitly rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees, His adversaries, who sowed the tares of their false accusations over the seed of the Word of God, i.e ., His preaching of the Gospel, by saying that Jesus was opposed to Moses, that He had a familiar spirit, and so on; by which they inferred that Jesus was not the Messiah, but a magician and an impostor. By this means they turned away the people from Him and His Gospel, and choked and destroyed the good seeds and desires of faith and piety which Christ had scattered in their hearts. Therefore they were tares, i.e ., the evil seed of the devil. When the blade was sprung up , c. For the first sprouts of zizania and of wheat are alike, so that one cannot be discerned from the other; but when they are grown up, they are easily distinguished. Servants of the householder , c. Lest ye root up the wheat also it them. For the tares are intertwined and interwoven among the roots of the wheat, so that if you were to pull up the former, you must root up the latter also. This parable Christ will expound, verse 31. The kingdom of Heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed , c. Instead of the birds of the heaven lodge in the branches of it the Arabic has they are overshadowed by its branches. This is Christ's third parable, the occasion and cause of which S. Chrysostom gives as follows: "Because the Lord had said that of the seed three parts perish, and one is preserved, and again of that which is preserved, there is great loss on account of the tares which are sown above it, lest people should say, who then and how many will believe? he removes this fear by the parable of the grain of mustard seed, and therefore it is said, Another parable put He forth unto them, the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed , c." You will enquire in the first place, what it is which is here compared to the kingdom of Heaven, and likened to a grain of mustard seed? 1. S. Hilary understands it of Christ Himself. He says, "The Lord compares Himself to a grain of mustard seed, which is very sharp and the least of all seeds, and whose virtue and power are increased by bruising and pressure. After this grain had been sown in the field, when it was taken by the people and delivered to death, as though in a field by a sort of sowing, there was the burial of its body, it grew above the measure of all herbs, and exceeded the glory of all the prophets. For like a herb the preaching of the prophets was given to Israel as being sick: but now in the branches of the tree, raised from the ground on high, the birds of the air dwell: by these we understand the Apostles, lifted up by the power of Christ, and they overshadow the world with their branches. To them the Gentiles flew for the hope of life; and when they are vexed with whirlwinds, that is by the blasts of the devil, they rest as in the branches of a tree." In like manner S. Gregory ( lib. 19 Moral. c. 11.) expounds this whole parable, "Christ Himself is the grain of mustard seed, who was planted in the sepulchre of the garden, and rose again a mighty tree. He was but a grain when He died; a tree when He rose again. A grain through lowliness of the flesh; a tree by the power of His majesty. A grain, because we saw Him, and there was no comeliness; but a tree because He was fairer than the children of men. The branches of this tree are sacred preachers. And let us see how widely they are spread. For what is spoken concerning them? Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world. The birds rest in their branches, because holy souls who lift up themselves from earthly thoughts by the wings, as it were, of virtues are refreshed after the fatigue of this life by their words and their consolations." You will say, how can Christ be called the kingdom of Heaven, when He is not the kingdom, but its King? It is replied: as a king is as it were the head in a kingdom, so a kingdom is as the body of a king. Wherefore a king represents the whole state or kingdom. Hence according to the rule of Ticonius, often in Scripture what belongs to the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ, is attributed to Christ, and vice versa. 2. More plainly and aptly, the kingdom of Heaven and the grain of mustard seed are the Church, especially the Primitive Church. You will enquire, (2). Why the Gospel is compared to a grain of mustard seed, and what are the resemblances between the two things? I answer, the first is that Christ by this parable intends to signify the immense power and fruitfulness of Evangelical preaching, insomuch that what had a very small beginning with Christ, and by a few Apostles, diffused itself over the whole world. For a grain of mustard seed is less than all seeds, i.e ., the least of all seeds; as the Syriac and Arabic have it. The Greek is μικρότερον πάντων σπερμάτων , i.e ., less than all seeds , meaning very little. This must be understood according to the common usage of speech, by which we call what is very little, or one of very small things, the least ; for otherwise to speak precisely, poppy seed, and the seed of rue, and of some other herbs, is less than mustard seed. Thus the preaching of the Gospel by Christ and the Apostles was at first very circumscribed. 2. A grain of mustard seed, especially in Syria, grows into a tree, so that birds dwell Syriac, build their nests in its branches. Thus the Gospel grew, and filled the whole world, so that the birds of Heaven, i.e ., men lofty in knowledge and understanding as well as kings and princes dwelt in its branches. (See Dan 4:9 and Dan 4:19 ). Some understand by the birds, the angels, because they have wings, and are very swift. Hear S. Augustine ( Serm. 33 de Sanc .). "Peter is a branch; Paul is a branch; blessed Laurence, whose festal day we are celebrating, is a branch. All the Apostles and martyrs of the Saviour are branches; and if anyone will bravely lay hold of them, they will escape being drowned in the waves of the world. He who dwells under their shadow shall not feel the fire of hell, and shall be secure from the storm of the tempest of the devil, and from being burnt up in the day of judgment." 3. And chiefly by mustard is denoted the igneous force and efficacy of the Gospel. "Pythagoras," says Pliny ( l. 20, c. 22), "considered that mustard holds the chief place amongst those things whose force is borne upward; since there is nothing which more thoroughly penetrates the nose and the brain." A grain of mustard refers to the fervour of faith, says S. Augustine. 4. Mustard seed must be bruised; for when it is bruised it emits its igneous force and flavour. Thus the preaching of the Gospel was as it were bruised by a thousand oppressions and persecutions, which the Apostles suffered; and then it breathed forth its igneous force and strength. 5. Mustard seed, as Pliny says, is sharp and biting. It draws tears, purges away phlegm and cerebral secretions; it is masticated for toothache; when bruised and mixed with vinegar it is applied to the stings of scorpions and the bites of snakes; it is an antidote to the poison of fungi; it is beneficial for the breast and lungs; it is useful against epilepsy, dropsy, asthma, lethargy, and many other diseases. Thus the Gospel expels poisons, that is sins, by the emetic of confession; it is sharp and biting, because it teaches penance and the cross; it excites the tears of compunction; it is medicine for all the faculties of the soul, and especially it dries up concupiscence, and animates to virtue. "The bitterness of its words is the medicine of souls," says S. Augustine. 6. Mustard seed by its sharpness seasons food, and renders it palatable. So also the Gospel renders palatable everything which is hard and difficult by means of the example of Christ, and by the hope of future glory which it promises. S. Augustine says, "A grain of mustard seed is great, not in appearance, but in virtue. At first appearance it seems small, worthless, despised, not possessing savour, nor odour, nor sweetness; but when it is bruised, it sheds abroad its odour and exhales nourishment of a fiery taste. It is so inflamed with the fervour of heat that there might be enclosed in it so much fire, by which men could (especially in the winter-time) drive away cold, and warm themselves inwardly." After this he applies the qualities of mustard to the Gospel and the Christian faith, thus: "Thus too the Christian faith, at first sight, appears small and worthless, not manifesting its power, not carrying any semblance of pride, neither furnishing grace. But as soon as it begins to be bruised by divers temptations, immediately it manifests its vigour, it indicates its sharpness, it breathes the warmth of belief in the Lord, and is possessed with so great ardour of divine fire, that both itself is hot and it compels those who participate to be fervent also. As the two disciples said in the Gospel, when the Lord spoke with them after His Passion, "Did not our hearts burn within us by the way, while the Lord Jesus opened to us the Scriptures?" A grain of mustard, then, warms the inward members of our body, but the power of faith burns up the sins of our heart. The one indeed takes away piercing cold; the other expels the devil's frost of transgressions. A grain of mustard, I say, purges away corporeal humours, but faith puts an end to the flux of lusts. By the one, medicine is gained for the head; but by faith our spiritual Head, Christ the Lord, is often refreshed. Moreover, we enjoy the sacred odour of faith, according to the analogy of mustard seed, as the blessed Apostle saith, "We are a sweet savour of Christ unto God." Tropologically ; All these things may be applied to a faithful soul, and especially to an Apostle, and to a suffering Christian, or to a martyr. Wherefore the Church adapts this parable to S. Laurence, as the Gospel for his festival. As S. Augustine says, in the work already cited, "We may compare the holy martyr Laurence to a grain of mustard seed; for he, being bruised by various sufferings, deserved to become fragrant throughout the whole world by the grace of his martyrdom. He, when he was in the body, was humble, unknown, and held in low estimation; but after he had been bruised, torn, and burnt he diffused the odour of his nobleness in the churches in all the world. Rightly, therefore, is the comparison applied to him. For Laurence, when he suffers, is inflamed. The fervour of its attrition moves the one; Laurence breathes forth fire in his manifold tribulations. Mustard, I say, is cooked in a small vessel; Laurence is roasted on the gridiron by the fiery flame. Blessed Laurence the martyr was burnt outwardly by the flames of the raging tyrant, but he was inflamed inwardly by the far greater fire of the love of Christ." The Arabians have a proverb "A grain of pepper is more powerful than many large gourds;" because if it be bruised it emits a fiery force, and makes itself felt in everyone's nostrils. You may say the same of a grain of mustard. A believer, therefore, should be a grain of pepper or mustard, and breathe everywhere, and upon all, a divine fire, and so pepper all men, and make them like himself, zealous that is, and ardent in the love of God. Another parable , c. This is Christ's fourth parable, of leaven, by which (as by the former parable) He shows the power and efficacy of the preaching of the Gospel. As S. Chrysostom says, "Like as leaven communicates its own virtue to a great quantity of meal, so shall ye, O ye Apostles, transforn the whole world." S. Chrysostom observes, with regard to the word hid : "Thus also ye, when ye shall be subjected to your persecutors, shall overcome them. And as leaven indeed is buried but not destroyed, but by degrees transforms everything to its own state; so shall it happen with your preaching. Do not ye, therefore, fear because I said, Many troubles shall happen unto you; for by this means shall ye shine, and shall overcome all." You will ask why Christ compares the Gospel to leaven? I reply, because leaven is a portion of the meal that has become a little sour, which takes place through fermentation. Hear how Pliny describes the manner in which leaven is made ( l 18, c. 11): "Now" (because formerly it was made in another way, as he had related a little before) "leaven is made of the meal itself, which is first kneaded before salt is added, after the manner of pottage, and left until it becomes a little sour. Commonly, indeed, they do not warm it, but only make use of what has been kept from the day before. And evidently it is the nature of heat to cause fermentation; as of bodies that are nourished with fermented bread to become stronger. Thus it was, that among our ancestors the greatest healthiness was attributed to the heaviest wheat." Again, leaven, although it be small in bulk, with its heat moistens the whole mass of dough; and as it were effects a change in its entire substance. It makes it palatable and digestible, so that it becomes wholesome bread for nourishing, sustaining and strengthening man. In like manner the Gospel by means of a few Apostles, who suffered many tribulations, converts the whole world to itself and makes the heart of each to be warmed with the love of God. The woman who kneads is the Church, or the power and wisdom of God says S. Augustine. Tropologically : S. Augustine says, "Christ calls love leaven, because it excites to warmth. The woman he calls wisdom. By the three measures of meal we may understand either these three things in man the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind; or the three degrees of fruit-bearing, an hundred, sixty, and thirty fold; or the three sorts of men, represented by Noah, Daniel and Job." ( l 1. q. q. Evang. q. 12.) Rabanus adds, "He says until the whole was leavened: because charity being hid in our minds ought to grow there until it transmutes the whole mind into its own perfection: that which is begun here, is perfected hereafter." S. Ambrose says, that like as leaven is disseminated through the whole mass of the meal, being as it were broken up; "so Christ was broken, torn and dissolved by His various sufferings: and His moisture, that is His precious Blood was poured out for our salvation, that it might by mingling itself with the whole human race, consolidate that race, which lay scattered abroad." See also S. Chrysostom, who says among other things, "If twelve men leavened nearly all the meal of the world, consider diligently in your minds, how great must be our wickedness and sloth, who, although we are so many, are not able to convert the remnant of the Gentiles, when we ought to be sufficient for a thousand worlds." S. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, was wont to weep over the same thing. His was the saying, "That formerly priests of gold celebrated in chalices of wood, but now wooden priests celebrate in golden chalices." Three measures : a measure was equal in quality to a bath which is a liquid measure, containing an Italian bushel, or as S. Jerome and Josephus say, a bushel and a half. The measure contained three Attic bushels. These three measures are the quarters of the world, Asia, Africa, Europe. These were designated by the three sons of Noah. For the posterity of Shem inhabited Asia; the posterity of Ham, Africa; and of Japhet, Europe. So Cæsarius, brother of S. Gregory Nazianzen. ( Dial. 4.) Symbolically ; S. Hilary says, the grace of the Gospel was hid in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets; now it hath appeared in the faith, hope and love of the Holy Trinity, that what the Law constituted, and the Prophets announced, the same might be fulfilled by the advent of the Gospels. Or as others say, that it might be confirmed by the threefold work of God, viz. of creation, redemption and glorification. Allegorically : S. Bernard, ( l. 5. de Consider .) says the Blessed Virgin joined and united in her womb the three natures of Christ, namely soul, body and divinity to the one Hypostasis of the Word. All these things spake Jesus in parables , meaning in a parabolical manner: things kept secret , Heb. הידות chidoth , i.e. enigmas , as the Chaldee trans. and S. Jerome (Psa 78:2 .). The Arabic has, I will speak things hidden before the foundation of the world. Christ cites the psalm of David, Psa 78:2 (lxxviii. 2), who, according to the letter, through the whole psalm, celebrates God's benefits to the Synagogue, i.e ., the people of Israel, from the beginning , i.e. from their going forth out of Egypt under Moses their leader, until David's own time, in order that he might stir up the people to be grateful to God, and to love and worship Him. But mystically, says S. Jerome, David was there a type of Christ, who celebrates the benefits granted by God through Himself to His Church, and before-time hid. These things were concerning the promised land in heaven, mysteries declared by parables. Observe that the Hebrew word for parables is mashal , which signifies any weighty and famous saying, such a one as predominates over others. For mashal means to rule: thus it came to signify what was obscure and recondite, whether it were an enigma, an allegory, a parable, or a sentence properly so called. Therefore the sentences in that seventy-eighth Psalm are not properly parables, but only weighty sentences. But here there are like weighty sentences and parables properly so called. Thus this verse of the Psalm applies to Christ in both its meanings, but to David only one of them. For in Scripture many things are spoken which are more suitable to the things signified by the allegory, than to the allegory itself and its literal meaning. When the multitudes were sent away , c., . . . declare unto us the parable of the tares. For this seemed more obscure than the others, and to contain severer threats.* Footnotes
- A.D. 31.
-
*
Mark
4:1
And again he began to teach by the sea side; and a great multitude was gathered together unto him, so that he went up into a ship and sat in the sea: and all the multitude was upon the land by the sea side.
-
*
Luke
8:4
And when a very great multitude was gathered together and hastened out of the cities, unto him, he spoke by a similitude.
*Lapide
. Mary, the wife of Cleophas, the mother of that S. Simeon who succeeded S. James in the Bishopric of Jerusalem. The third was Mary Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of the Apostles James and John. But it is clear that Mary, the wife of Alphæus is the same as Mary the wife pf Cleophas, if we compare S. John xix. 25 with Matt. xxvii. 56, and Mar 15:40 . For John says. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." But Matthew says: "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." And Mark: "There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." We see here plainly, that she who is called by John Mary of Cleophas is called by Matthew and Mark, Mary the mother of James and Joses ; James, I say, who is called (Acts i. and Matt. x.) not the son of Zebedee, but of Alphæus. Therefore, Mary of Cleophas and Mary of Alphæus are one and the same person. Cleophas and Alphæus are really one and the same Hebrew word, by a common interchange of letters. Unless you prefer to consider that one of them was the husband, the other the father, of this Mary. Again, you may see, that she who is called Salome by Mark, is called by Matthew the mother of Zebedee's children; this, therefore, was Salome. It seems, then, that the same Mary of Cleophas, or Alphæus, was the mother of these four viz., James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. For Matthew and Mark (in the places already cited) call her the mother of James and Joses. But Jude was the brother of James, as he says himself in the beginning of his Epistle. Simon also, or Simeon, who succeeded his brother James at Jerusalem, was also a brother, for he was the son of Cleophas and Mary his wife. Moreover, Hegesippus, S. Chrysostom, and several other Fathers assert that this Mary was not the daughter, but the wife of Cleophas. And the same Hegesippus says this Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the spouse of the Blessed Virgin. He is the same Cleophas to whom, with his companion, Christ made himself known on the way to Emmaus in the breaking of bread. He was slain by the Jews, in that very house of Emmaus, on account of His confession of Christ. He died a martyr, on the 25th of Sept., as the Roman Martyrology has it. You will ask, why then do Matthew and Mark call this Mary the mother of James and Joses, but not of Simon and Jude? I reply, for the sake of brevity, and because the two first, viz., James and Joses were accounted at that time more celebrated than the other two. This Mary, the mother of so many saintly sons and daughters, died in sanctity, in Judea, on the 9th April. And his sisters , c. The sisters of James, Joses, c., are called by Hippolytus ( Ap. Niceph. l. 2. c. 3.), Esther, and Tama; but by S, Epiphanius ( Hæres 78.) and Theophylact they are called Mary, Salome who was the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of S. John and S. James the great, the Apostles, who were therefore nephews, through their sister, of James the less, Joses, c. ( See Christophor. a Castro de Deipaz. c. 1), where he shows that Salome was older than her brothers James and Jude. For she was the mother of John and James who were chosen by Christ, together with their uncles, James and Jude, to be Apostles. For John seems to have been only three years younger than Christ. Hence too, only James, Joses, Simon and Jude, the sons of Cleophas, are called brothers, i.e ., cousins of Christ, on the father's side. But John and James the sons of Zebedee, are not called brethren of Christ, because they were not first cousins of Christ, but children of His cousin Salome. Again Christophor. gathers from hence, that James the less, who was the brother of Salome, was senior to James the greater, the son of Salome and Zebedee, by nine or ten years at the least. James the less was the uncle of James the great. For they were not so called, in respect of age but of their vocation, by Christ. It is not doubtful that Christ had many other relations and connections, but these are specially mentioned, both because they were nearer in blood; and because they at length believed on Hirn, and became His Apostles. They were offended , c. This is, they were indignant that Christ, who was but a workman, should set himself up for a prophet and teacher; just as men would be offended and indignant now, if they saw any one jump out of a workshop into a Cathedral, and act the Doctor; and would accuse him of the utmost arrogance and folly. But the inhabitants of Nazareth were ignorant that Christ was the Son of God, who, out of His immense love, had not disdained to be born among workmen, and to act as one, that He might redeem us, and teach us humility by His example. Therefore this charity and humility of Christ, which ought to have made them admire and venerate Him, was a stumbling-block to them, because they would not believe that God would be willing to stoop so low. But Jesus said unto them , c. This is a common proverb, and generally, but not universally true; for John the Baptist, as well as Isaiah, Elias, Elisha, Daniel, Hosea, c., were held in great honour by the Jews their countrymen. Now the first cause why a prophet, that is a teacher, is frequently without honour among his own people, is what S. Jerome gives, "It is almost natural for citizens to have an invidious feeling towards their fellow citizens. For they do not consider a man's present works, but call to mind his frail infancy, as though they themselves had not arrived by the same gradations of age at mature years." Listen to S. Ambrose, ( c . 4. Luc .). "No slight envy is that which betrays itself, which forgetful of the charity belonging to citizenship, turns the causes of love into bitter hatred. This is declared both by example and the oracle, that, in vain, do you look for the assistance of heavenly mercy, if you envy the progress of another's virtue. For the Lord despises the envious, and turns away the miracles of His power from those who disparage the divine blessings in others." 2. Because too great familiarity breeds contempt as S. Chrysostom says. And Theophylact says, "We are wont to despise those things which are very common, always paying greater regard to foreign and unaccustomed things. We admire what comes from abroad; we despise what we have at home even when what we have at home is better. Thus, we turn up our nose at our own physicians, however learned they may be; and we purchase herbs and flowers brought from India, when we have the very same, or better, in our own woods. Of a truth 'novelty is charming.'" 3. Because by daily conversation with people, their faults, or natural infirmities, are readily disclosed; and this is apt to lessen our veneration for them. But it is otherwise in conversing with God, because the greater converse we have with Him, the more does it conduce to reverence. The inhabitants of Nazareth seeing Christ eat, drink, sleep, work like other men, despised Him, especially when they beheld His relations mean and poor: Nor, indeed, could they believe that He was born of a Virgin Mother, and had God for His Father. Let, therefore, a teacher and preacher avoid familiarity with men, lest he be despised; for, as S. Cyril says. "Preaching is not able to bring forth fruit where the preacher is despised." And He did not many mighty works there , c. (Arab.), on account of the paucity of their faith. This caused them to be unworthy of miracles. S. Jerome gives another reason, "That He might not condemn their unbelief by working many miracles." For he who beholds many miracles, and does not believe, sins more gravely than he who has beheld but few, and will be, therefore, more heavily condemned, and punished in hell This was the cause why Christ wrought but few miracles among the Jews, says S. Jerome, "He works greater miracles among the Gentiles, day by day, by His apostles, not so much in healing men's bodies as in saving their souls"*H And he spoke to them many things in parables, saying: Behold the sower went forth to sow.
Ver. 3. To them he spoke many things, from a ship, in parables; probably many more than are here recorded. By familiar and well-known objects, Jesus Christ would thus convey more pleasingly his divine instructions, and teach them to spiritualize their daily labours, and by natural things, which meet the senses, lead them to the knowledge of things divine, which we cannot naturally comprehend. A. — Several reasons may be assigned why our Lord made use of parables: 1st. The lively imagination of the Orientals made them relish these figurative expressions, which awaken the attention, and exercise the understanding. 2d. The indisposition of his hearers made him frequently veil his instructions under similitudes or parables; but in private, he expounded the meaning to his disciples, who were better disposed, and was ever ready to give every necessary and satisfactory explanation to as many as sincerely wished for it. — A third motive, given by S. Matthew, was the accomplishment of the prophecies; for one of the characteristics of the Messias was, that he would express himself in this parabolical manner; and Jesus Christ was pleased that the most minute circumstances should be fulfilled in his person, in order that the resemblance between him and the ancient prophets, in the mode of instructing, might induce the Jews to consider him as the great prophet, foretold by Moses. There are few Christians that do not dwell with delight and improvement on our Lord's parables. Their imagination, warmed with the singular beauty of the imagery, more easily retains them; and the greatest geniuses have ever esteemed them as very superior and striking lessons of morality and religion. — In his sermon on the mount, Jesus Christ does not make use of parables to convey his instructions to the Jews, for then his auditors were composed of a mixed multitude, and the major part of them illiterate people; but here, on the contrary, they are the Scribes and Pharisees, the doctors of the law. Chrys. — Jesus Christ speaks sometimes in plain, and sometimes in obscure terms, that, by what they understand, they may be led to the search of what they do not understand. S. Jerom.
*H And whilst he soweth some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and ate them up.
Ver. 4. And whilst he soweth. S. Matthew and S. Mark subjoin the following parables to what goes before, but S. Luke places the parable of the sower immediately after the second journey through Galilee, which he anticipates. Jesus Christ successively proposed four parables to the people, and then dismissed them; and being now retired with his disciples, he unfolded to them the meaning of the parables when in the house. v. 36. S. Matthew, however, interrupts the course of the parables, and after the first, anticipates the request of the disciples to have it explained; but from S. Mark, we learn that this did not take place till Christ was alone in the house. Of the eight parables, all spoken by Jesus on the same day, the first five were addressed to the people assembled on the sea-shore, the other three were added by him when alone with the apostles in the house, and are in some measure explanations of the former. In the first, we see the different success of the word of God from the different dispositions of the hearers. And as we find that only one-fourth part of the seed produced fruit, we may thence infer how many and great are the obstacles in the way of salvation, and how few will be the number of the elect. A.
*H And other some fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth.
Ver. 5. Had no deepness of earth; and therefore the seed, not able to shoot downwards, shot upwards, and for want of necessary moisture and nutriment, was burned by the scorching heat of the sun.
*H And others fell upon good ground: and they brought forth fruit, some an hundred fold, some sixty fold, and some thirty fold.
Ver. 8. Some a hundred-fold. This difference of fruits is the difference of merits here, and of the rewards hereafter, according to the diversity of states, &c. S. Augustine, in his work, (de Virginitate, c. xliv, and seq.) saith, that the hundred-fold agreeth with professed virgins; the sixty-fold with religious widows; the thirty-fold with married persons. This old heretic, Jovinian, and many of modern date, deny, affirming that there is no difference of merits or rewards. S. Jer. l. ii. adv. Jovin. Amb. ep. lxxxii. Augustinus ep. lxxxii. B.
*H He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Ver. 9. He that hath ears to hear. By these words, we are exhorted to examine the meaning of the parables. S. Jer. See C. xi. 15. — We are also taught that not all, but only such as have had the sense of the Scriptures opened to their understanding from above, can properly understand them. The apostles themselves were in ignorance till Jesus Christ gave them the true meaning: aperuit illis sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas: "he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." S. Luke xxiv. 45. It is God who speaketh in the Scripture, and it is God who giveth us to understand what is therein delivered. His truths he conceals from the proud, while he reveals them to the little and humble. How can any persons pretend that the most mysterious, as well as the most sacred book in the world, is open to every understanding? S. Paul (Acts xiii. 26.) tells the Jews, that although the Scriptures were read to them every sabbath-day, their very rulers did not understand them; and S. Peter, in his 2d Ep. (iii. 17.) assures us, that there are many passage hard to be understood. — All comes from God. It is He who openeth our ears to hear, our heart to believe, and our mind to understand. Agar was near a well, and yet she wept, because she had no water to give her son to drink. God opened her eyes, and she saw the well that was close to her. Thus, says Origen, we may read the Scripture, and find no nourishment for the soul, unless God opens our mind, to see therein on what we are to nourish it. It contains salutary waters, but only those can be benefited by them, who see how to drink of the heavenly source. It is the Holy Ghost alone who can effectually open our eyes, to see these waters that spring up to life eternal; and this special grace we are to obtain by humble and fervent prayer. Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
*H And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
Ver. 10. And his disciples came. How great was the concern of the apostles for the welfare of their countrymen. They did not say to Jesus, Why speakest thou thus to us; but, why speakest thou to them in parables? S. Thos. Aquin.
*H Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
Ver. 11. To you it is given. The mysteries of the kingdom of God are not disclosed to the Scribes and Pharisees, who were unwilling to believe in him, (though it was the duty and occupation of the Scribes to expound the sacred oracles to others) but to those who adhered closely to Christ, and believed in him: let us therefore run in company with the apostles to Jesus Christ, that he may disclose to us the mysteries of his gospel. S. Thos. Aquin. — Can we then suppose, for a single moment, that the mere putting of a Bible into every man's hand, will convert the world. The command given to the apostles and their successors in the ministry is, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world. S. Mat. xxviii. 20. There is not a single word to them about writing. During 2,500 years, from Adam to Moses, were the patriarchal families and other servants of God in a state of ignorance, concerning either the positive instructions of the Almighty respecting the sabbath-day, the rites of sacrifice, or their moral duties? Yet there was no Scripture during all that period. For more than 400 years after Jesus Christ, the canon of Scripture, as now generally received by Protestants, remained unsettled. Had the apostles and evangelists done nothing more than publish their writings, and disseminate them to every pagan country, not a single nation, not a single pagan, would have abandoned their gods to believe in a crucified Jesus. — To them it is not given; i.e. to such as are unworthy, and by hardening their hearts, have made themselves unworthy. Wi.
*H For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath.
Ver. 12. But he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. We read again, (Matt. xxv. 29.) That also which he seemth to have, shall be taken away; and in S. Luke, (C. viii. 18.) That also which he thinketh he hath. One passage helps to expound another: so that each of these texts, with a little reflection, will be found true; and such a truth, as ought to be a subject of fear and apprehension to all that are negligent and indolent in the service of God. For, as S. Augustine observes, they who have received graces and favours from God, and have not made good use and profited by them, they may be said not to have them, although they are not yet take from them. And why? but because they make no more use of them, than if they had them not. See the parables of the talents, Matt. xxv, and Luke xix. Wi. — He that hath, to him shall be given the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But such as are incredulous, and resist my words, like the Pharisees and other Jews, so far from being enriched with my spiritual gifts in my kingdom, shall even be deprived of the benefits they now possess. Thus the Jews were deprived of their temple, priesthood, kingdom, and even the true worship of God. S. Jer. — They rejected Jesus Christ, the fountain and corner-stone of virtue; all therefore they had acquired, or possessed, shall be taken from them, and given to the apostles. Idem. — Whoever has a desire of complying with the divine precepts, that desire shall not only be increased, but all other virtues shall be added unto him; but if he be devoid of this desire, the virtues he already possesses, or seems to possess, shall be taken from him, not that God will deprive him of these without cause, but he will render himself unworthy of them. S. Chrys.
*H Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Ver. 13. Because seeing they see not, &c. i.e. they see not as they might, and ought to do, by shutting their eyes against the lights given them. — Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, &c. This passage, by which the prophet Isaias (vi. 9.) was ordered to foretell the obstinate blindness of the Jews, in refusing to receive and believe in their Messias, is cited six times in the New Testament; to wit, here in S. Matthew, also Mark iv. 14, Luke viii. 10, Jo. xii. 40, Acts xxviii. 26, and Rom. xi. 8. In all these places we must detest the false interpretation of those who, not without heresy and blasphemy, would have God to be the author and cause of sin. When it is said, (Isai. vi. 9.) blind the heart of this people, &c. the prophet is only commanded to foretell their blindness, of which, by their wilful obstinacy, they were the true cause. And when we read in S. Mark, that to those that are without, all things are done in parables, that seeing they may see, and not see, &c. the word that does not signify the cause, nor the end, but only the event, and the consequence of what would happen by the wilful blindness of the Jews, and by the just permission of God. S. Matthew here expounds to us the words of the prophet, by which it clearly appears that they were the cause of their own blindness; and that, by their obstinacy, they had made themselves unworthy of particular lights from God. For the heart of this people (v. 18.) is grown gross . . . . and their eyes they have shut, &c. The Jews therefore shut their own eyes, hardened their own hearts, which God only permitted. See Rom. ix. 18. &c. Wi. — If this blindness were natural, then indeed I would have opened their eyes to see and understand, but since this blindness is voluntary, he says, that seeing they see not, and hearing, they hear not; i.e. they have seen me cast out devils, and they said, in Beelzebub he casteth out devils; they heard I drew all to God, and they say, this man cometh not from God. Since, therefore, they assert the very contrary to what they both see and hear, the gift of seeing and hearing me shall be taken away from them.
* Footnotes
-
*
Isaias
6:9
And he said: Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not.
-
*
Mark
4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
-
*
Luke
8:10
To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see and hearing may not understand.
-
*
John
12:40
He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart and be converted: and I should heal them.
-
*
Acts
28:26
Saying: Go to this people and say to them: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive.
-
*
Romans
11:8
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, until this present day.
*H For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Ver. 15. And should be converted. In this the prophet shews the atrocity of the Jewish wickedness, and the malice of their hearts, but that he may attach them to God, their Father, he immediately subjoins, lest being converted, I should heal them; and this he says, in order to manifest to them the goodness of God, if they would repent. S. Chrys. ex. D. Tho. — There is some difference between the text of Isaias, given by S. Matthew, and the original. But we have elsewhere observed, that the evangelists attend more to the sense than the words. The Septuagint have translated this text in the same manner. The prophecy here mentioned regarded the Jews in the time of Isaias, according to the strict letter, but still more particularly the Jews in the time of Christ. V. — They were authors of their own blindness, sin, damnation, and not Jesus Christ, as Calvin teaches. See also Acts of the Apostles, xxviii. and Rom. i. and ix. 18. &c. God is not the author of evil. B.
*H But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.
Ver. 16. But blessed are your eyes. As the eyes of such as see and will not believe are miserable, so, he says, blessed are your eyes; you see my miracles, you hear my heavenly doctrines, &c. Aquin. — Had we not read in a preceding part, that Christ exhorted his auditors to search after the knowledge of his words, we might perhaps have thought that Jesus here spoke of corporal eyes and ears; but the eyes here mentioned, seem to me to be those which can discern the mysteries of Christ. S. Jer. ex D. Thom. Aquin.
* Footnotes
-
*
Luke
10:24
For I say to you that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see and have not seen them; and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
*H For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them: and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
Ver. 17. Amen, I say to you. S. Jerom remarks, that these words of our Saviour seem to contradict another part of Scripture, where it is said, Abraham desired to see my days; he saw them, and rejoiced. But S. Jerom answers his own objection thus: Abraham indeed saw my days, but only in a dark manner, in enigma, but not in reality, whilst you have your Lord with you; you speak to him, and interrogate him at pleasure. Aquin. — Christ declares his disciples more blessed than the ancient patriarchs and prophets. . . . They saw him only by faith, but the disciples with their corporal eyes. S. Chrys.
*H When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side.
Ver. 19. When any one heareth. This seed falleth upon four different kinds of soil, which represent four different sorts of persons. The 1st, such as continue obdurate in vice; the 2d, such as are unsteady and inconstant in their good resolutions; the 3d, such as are absorbed in the cares and pleasures of life; the 4th, such as have every proper disposition for receiving the word of God with fruit. — There cometh the wicked one, ο πονηρος , the devil, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts, lest believing they should be saved. A.
*H Yet hath he not root in himself, but is only for a time: and when there ariseth tribulation and persecution because of the word, he is presently scandalized.
Ver. 21. And suffers shipwreck in his faith. Maldon.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 55, Article 6
[II-II, Q. 55, Art. 6]
Whether It Is Lawful to Be Solicitous About Temporal Matters?
Objection 1: It would seem lawful to be solicitous about temporal matters. Because a superior should be solicitous for his subjects, according to Rom. 12:8, "He that ruleth, with solicitude." Now according to the Divine ordering, man is placed over temporal things, according to Ps. 8:8, "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet," etc. Therefore man should be solicitous about temporal things.
Obj. 2: Further, everyone is solicitous about the end for which he works. Now it is lawful for a man to work for the temporal things whereby he sustains life, wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 3:10): "If any man will not work, neither let him eat." Therefore it is lawful to be solicitous about temporal things.
Obj. 3: Further, solicitude about works of mercy is praiseworthy, according to 2 Tim. 1:17, "When he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me." Now solicitude about temporal things is sometimes connected with works of mercy; for instance, when a man is solicitous to watch over the interests of orphans and poor persons. Therefore solicitude about temporal things is not unlawful.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 6:31): "Be not solicitous . . . saying, What shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?" And yet such things are very necessary.
_I answer that,_ Solicitude denotes an earnest endeavor to obtain something. Now it is evident that the endeavor is more earnest when there is fear of failure, so that there is less solicitude when success is assured. Accordingly solicitude about temporal things may be unlawful in three ways. First on the part of the object of solicitude; that is, if we seek temporal things as an end. Hence Augustine says (De Operibus Monach. xxvi): "When Our Lord said: 'Be not solicitous, ' etc. . . . He intended to forbid them either to make such things their end, or for the sake of these things to do whatever they were commanded to do in preaching the Gospel." Secondly, solicitude about temporal things may be unlawful, through too much earnestness in endeavoring to obtain temporal things, the result being that a man is drawn away from spiritual things which ought to be the chief object of his search, wherefore it is written (Matt. 13:22) that "the care of this world . . . chokes up the word." Thirdly, through over much fear, when, to wit, a man fears to lack necessary things if he do what he ought to do. Now our Lord gives three motives for laying aside this fear. First, on account of the yet greater favors bestowed by God on man, independently of his solicitude, viz. his body and soul (Matt. 6:26); secondly, on account of the care with which God watches over animals and plants without the assistance of man, according to the requirements of their nature; thirdly, because of Divine providence, through ignorance of which the gentiles are solicitous in seeking temporal goods before all others. Consequently He concludes that we should be solicitous most of all about spiritual goods, hoping that temporal goods also may be granted us according to our needs, if we do what we ought to do.
Reply Obj. 1: Temporal goods are subjected to man that he may use them according to his needs, not that he may place his end in them and be over solicitous about them.
Reply Obj. 2: The solicitude of a man who gains his bread by bodily labor is not superfluous but proportionate; hence Jerome says on Matt. 6:31, "Be not solicitous," that "labor is necessary, but solicitude must be banished," namely superfluous solicitude which unsettles the mind.
Reply Obj. 3: In the works of mercy solicitude about temporal things is directed to charity as its end, wherefore it is not unlawful, unless it be superfluous. _______________________
SEVENTH
*S Part 3, Ques 186, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 186, Art. 3]
Whether Poverty Is Required for Religious Perfection?
Objection 1: It would seem that poverty is not required for religious perfection. For that which it is unlawful to do does not apparently belong to the state of perfection. But it would seem to be unlawful for a man to give up all he possesses; since the Apostle (2 Cor. 8:12) lays down the way in which the faithful are to give alms saying: "If the will be forward, it is accepted according to that which a man hath," i.e. "you should keep back what you need," and afterwards he adds (2 Cor. 8:13): "For I mean not that others should be eased, and you burthened," i.e. "with poverty," according to a gloss. Moreover a gloss on 1 Tim. 6:8, "Having food, and wherewith to be covered," says: "Though we brought nothing, and will carry nothing away, we must not give up these temporal things altogether." Therefore it seems that voluntary poverty is not requisite for religious perfection.
Obj. 2: Further, whosoever exposes himself to danger sins. But he who renounces all he has and embraces voluntary poverty exposes himself to danger--not only spiritual, according to Prov. 30:9, "Lest perhaps . . . being compelled by poverty, I should steal and forswear the name of my God," and Ecclus. 27:1, "Through poverty many have sinned"--but also corporal, for it is written (Eccles. 7:13): "As wisdom is a defense, so money is a defense," and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "the waste of property appears to be a sort of ruining of one's self, since thereby man lives." Therefore it would seem that voluntary poverty is not requisite for the perfection of religious life.
Obj. 3: Further, "Virtue observes the mean," as stated in _Ethic._ ii, 6. But he who renounces all by voluntary poverty seems to go to the extreme rather than to observe the mean. Therefore he does not act virtuously: and so this does not pertain to the perfection of life.
Obj. 4: Further, the ultimate perfection of man consists in happiness. Now riches conduce to happiness; for it is written (Ecclus. 31:8): "Blessed is the rich man that is found without blemish," and the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that "riches contribute instrumentally to happiness." Therefore voluntary poverty is not requisite for religious perfection.
Obj. 5: Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious state. But bishops may have property, as stated above (Q. 185, A. 6). Therefore religious may also.
Obj. 6: Further, almsgiving is a work most acceptable to God, and as Chrysostom says (Hom. ix in Ep. ad Hebr.) "is a most effective remedy in repentance." Now poverty excludes almsgiving. Therefore it would seem that poverty does not pertain to religious perfection.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. viii, 26): "There are some of the righteous who bracing themselves up to lay hold of the very height of perfection, while they aim at higher objects within, abandon all things without." Now, as stated above, (AA. 1, 2), it belongs properly to religious to brace themselves up in order to lay hold of the very height of perfection. Therefore it belongs to them to abandon all outward things by voluntary poverty.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), the religious state is an exercise and a school for attaining to the perfection of charity. For this it is necessary that a man wholly withdraw his affections from worldly things; since Augustine says (Confess. x, 29), speaking to God: "Too little doth he love Thee, who loves anything with Thee, which he loveth not for Thee." Wherefore he says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 36) that "greater charity means less cupidity, perfect charity means no cupidity." Now the possession of worldly things draws a man's mind to the love of them: hence Augustine says (Ep. xxxi ad Paulin. et Theras.) that "we are more firmly attached to earthly things when we have them than when we desire them: since why did that young man go away sad, save because he had great wealth? For it is one thing not to wish to lay hold of what one has not, and another to renounce what one already has; the former are rejected as foreign to us, the latter are cut off as a limb." And Chrysostom says (Hom. lxiii in Matth.) that "the possession of wealth kindles a greater flame and the desire for it becomes stronger."
Hence it is that in the attainment of the perfection of charity the first foundation is voluntary poverty, whereby a man lives without property of his own, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. 19:21), "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me."
Reply Obj. 1: As the gloss adds, "when the Apostle said this (namely 'not that you should be burthened,' i.e. with poverty)," he did not mean that "it were better not to give: but he feared for the weak, whom he admonished so to give as not to suffer privation." Hence in like manner the other gloss means not that it is unlawful to renounce all one's temporal goods, but that this is not required of necessity. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30): "Our Lord does not wish," namely does not command us "to pour out our wealth all at once, but to dispense it; or perhaps to do as did Eliseus who slew his oxen, and fed the poor with that which was his own so that no household care might hold him back."
Reply Obj. 2: He who renounces all his possessions for Christ's sake exposes himself to no danger, neither spiritual nor corporal. For spiritual danger ensues from poverty when the latter is not voluntary; because those who are unwillingly poor, through the desire of money-getting, fall into many sins, according to 1 Tim. 6:9, "They that will become rich, fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil." This attachment is put away by those who embrace voluntary poverty, but it gathers strength in those who have wealth, as stated above. Again bodily danger does not threaten those who, intent on following Christ, renounce all their possessions and entrust themselves to divine providence. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "Those who seek first the kingdom of God and His justice are not weighed down by anxiety lest they lack what is necessary."
Reply Obj. 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), the mean of virtue is taken according to right reason, not according to the quantity of a thing. Consequently whatever may be done in accordance with right reason is not rendered sinful by the greatness of the quantity, but all the more virtuous. It would, however, be against right reason to throw away all one's possessions through intemperance, or without any useful purpose; whereas it is in accordance with right reason to renounce wealth in order to devote oneself to the contemplation of wisdom. Even certain philosophers are said to have done this; for Jerome says (Ep. xlviii ad Paulin.): "The famous Theban, Crates, once a very wealthy man, when he was going to Athens to study philosophy, cast away a large amount of gold; for he considered that he could not possess both gold and virtue at the same time." Much more therefore is it according to right reason for a man to renounce all he has, in order perfectly to follow Christ. Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rust. Monach.): "Poor thyself, follow Christ poor."
Reply Obj. 4: Happiness or felicity is twofold. One is perfect, to which we look forward in the life to come; the other is imperfect, in respect of which some are said to be happy in this life. The happiness of this life is twofold, one is according to the active life, the other according to the contemplative life, as the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. x, 7, 8). Now wealth conduces instrumentally to the happiness of the active life which consists in external actions, because as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) "we do many things by friends, by riches, by political influence, as it were by instruments." On the other hand, it does not conduce to the happiness of the contemplative life, rather is it an obstacle thereto, inasmuch as the anxiety it involves disturbs the quiet of the soul, which is most necessary to one who contemplates. Hence it is that the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. x, 8) that "for actions many things are needed, but the contemplative man needs no such things," namely external goods, "for his operation; in fact they are obstacles to his contemplation."
Man is directed to future happiness by charity; and since voluntary poverty is an efficient exercise for the attaining of perfect charity, it follows that it is of great avail in acquiring the happiness of heaven. Wherefore our Lord said (Matt. 19:21): "Go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." Now riches once they are possessed are in themselves of a nature to hinder the perfection of charity, especially by enticing and distracting the mind. Hence it is written (Matt. 13:22) that "the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word" of God, for as Gregory says (Hom. xv in Ev.) by "preventing the good desire from entering into the heart, they destroy life at its very outset." Consequently it is difficult to safeguard charity amidst riches: wherefore our Lord said (Matt. 19:23) that "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven," which we must understand as referring to one who actually has wealth, since He says that this is impossible for him who places his affection in riches, according to the explanation of Chrysostom (Hom. lxiii in Matth.), for He adds (Matt. 19:24): "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." Hence it is not said simply that the "rich man" is blessed, but "the rich man that is found without blemish, and that hath not gone after gold," and this because he has done a difficult thing, wherefore the text continues (Matt. 19:9): "Who is he? and we will praise him; for he hath done wonderful things in his life," namely by not loving riches though placed in the midst of them.
Reply Obj. 5: The episcopal state is not directed to the attainment of perfection, but rather to the effect that, in virtue of the perfection which he already has, a man may govern others, by administering not only spiritual but also temporal things. This belongs to the active life, wherein many things occur that may be done by means of wealth as an instrument, as stated (ad 4). Wherefore it is not required of bishops, who make profession of governing Christ's flock, that they have nothing of their own, whereas it is required of religious who make profession of learning to obtain perfection.
Reply Obj. 6: The renouncement of one's own wealth is compared to almsgiving as the universal to the particular, and as the holocaust to the sacrifice. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.) that those who assist "the needy with the things they possess, by their good deeds offer sacrifice, since they offer up something to God and keep back something for themselves; whereas those who keep nothing for themselves offer a holocaust which is greater than a sacrifice." Wherefore Jerome also says (Contra Vigilant.): "When you declare that those do better who retain the use of their possessions, and dole out the fruits of their possessions to the poor, it is not I but the Lord Who answers you; If thou wilt be perfect," etc., and afterwards he goes on to say: "This man whom you praise belongs to the second and third degree, and we too commend him: provided we acknowledge the first as to be preferred to the second and third." For this reason in order to exclude the error of Vigilantius it is said (De Eccl. Dogm. xxxviii): "It is a good thing to give away one's goods by dispensing them to the poor: it is better to give them away once for all with the intention of following the Lord, and, free of solicitude, to be poor with Christ." _______________________
FOURTH
*S Part 3, Ques 188, Article 7
[II-II, Q. 188, Art. 7]
Whether Religious Perfection Is Diminished by Possessing Something in Common?
Objection 1: It would seem that religious perfection is diminished by possessing something in common. For our Lord said (Matt. 19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast and give to the poor." Hence it is clear that to lack worldly wealth belongs to the perfection of Christian life. Now those who possess something in common do not lack worldly wealth. Therefore it would seem that they do not quite reach to the perfection of Christian life.
Obj. 2: Further, the perfection of the counsels requires that one should be without worldly solicitude; wherefore the Apostle in giving the counsel of virginity said (1 Cor. 7:32): "I would have you to be without solicitude." Now it belongs to the solicitude of the present life that certain people keep something to themselves for the morrow; and this solicitude was forbidden His disciples by our Lord (Matt. 6:34) saying: "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow." Therefore it would seem that the perfection of Christian life is diminished by having something in common.
Obj. 3: Further, possessions held in common belong in some way to each member of the community; wherefore Jerome (Ep. lx ad Heliod. Episc.) says in reference to certain people: "They are richer in the monastery than they had been in the world; though serving the poor Christ they have wealth which they had not while serving the rich devil; the Church rejects them now that they are rich, who in the world were beggars." But it is derogatory to religious perfection that one should possess wealth of one's own. Therefore it is also derogatory to religious perfection to possess anything in common.
Obj. 4: Further, Gregory (Dial. iii, 14) relates of a very holy man named Isaac, that "when his disciples humbly signified that he should accept the possessions offered to him for the use of the monastery, he being solicitous for the safeguarding of his poverty, held firmly to his opinion, saying: A monk who seeks earthly possessions is no monk at all": and this refers to possessions held in common, and which were offered him for the common use of the monastery. Therefore it would seem destructive of religious perfection to possess anything in common.
Obj. 5: Further, our Lord in prescribing religious perfection to His disciples, said (Matt. 10:9, 10): "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor script for your journey." By these words, as Jerome says in his commentary, "He reproves those philosophers who are commonly called Bactroperatae [*i.e. staff and scrip bearers], who as despising the world and valuing all things at naught carried their pantry about with them." Therefore it would seem derogatory to religious perfection that one should keep something whether for oneself or for the common use.
_On the contrary,_ Prosper [*Julianus Pomerius, among the works of Prosper] says (De Vita Contempl. ix) and his words are quoted (XII, qu. 1, can. Expedit): "It is sufficiently clear both that for the sake of perfection one should renounce having anything of one's own, and that the possession of revenues, which are of course common property, is no hindrance to the perfection of the Church."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 184, A. 3, ad 1; Q. 185, A. 6, ad 1), perfection consists, essentially, not in poverty, but in following Christ, according to the saying of Jerome (Super Matth. xix, 27): "Since it is not enough to leave all, Peter adds that which is perfect, namely, 'We have followed Thee,'" while poverty is like an instrument or exercise for the attainment of perfection. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. i, 7) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings, watchings, meditating on the Scriptures, poverty, and privation of all one's possessions are not perfection, but means of perfection."
Now the privation of one's possessions, or poverty, is a means of perfection, inasmuch as by doing away with riches we remove certain obstacles to charity; and these are chiefly three. The first is the cares which riches bring with them; wherefore our Lord said (Matt. 13:22): "That which was sown [Vulg.: 'He that received the seed'] among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choketh up the word." The second is the love of riches, which increases with the possession of wealth; wherefore Jerome says (Super Matth. xix, 23) that "since it is difficult to despise riches when we have them, our Lord did not say: 'It is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,' but: 'It is difficult.'" The third is vainglory or elation which results from riches, according to Ps. 48:7, "They that trust in their own strength, and glory in the multitude of their riches."
Accordingly the first of these three cannot be altogether separated from riches whether great or small. For man must needs take a certain amount of care in acquiring or keeping external things. But so long as external things are sought or possessed only in a small quantity, and as much as is required for a mere livelihood, such like care does not hinder one much; and consequently is not inconsistent with the perfection of Christian life. For our Lord did not forbid all care, but only such as is excessive and hurtful; wherefore Augustine, commenting on Matt. 6:25, "Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat," says (De Serm. in Monte [*The words quoted are from De Operibus Monach. xxvi]): "In saying this He does not forbid them to procure these things in so far as they needed them, but to be intent on them, and for their sake to do whatever they are bidden to do in preaching the Gospel." Yet the possession of much wealth increases the weight of care, which is a great distraction to man's mind and hinders him from giving himself wholly to God's service. The other two, however, namely the love of riches and taking pride or glorying in riches, result only from an abundance of wealth.
Nevertheless it makes a difference in this matter if riches, whether abundant or moderate, be possessed in private or in common. For the care that one takes of one's own wealth, pertains to love of self, whereby a man loves himself in temporal matters; whereas the care that is given to things held in common pertains to the love of charity which "seeketh not her own," but looks to the common good. And since religion is directed to the perfection of charity, and charity is perfected in "the love of God extending to contempt of self" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xiv, 28,] it is contrary to religious perfection to possess anything in private. But the care that is given to common goods may pertain to charity, although it may prove an obstacle to some higher act of charity, such as divine contemplation or the instructing of one's neighbor. Hence it is evident that to have excessive riches in common, whether in movable or in immovable property, is an obstacle to perfection, though not absolutely incompatible with it; while it is not an obstacle to religious perfection to have enough external things, whether movables or immovables, as suffice for a livelihood, if we consider poverty in relation to the common end of religious orders, which is to devote oneself to the service of God. But if we consider poverty in relation to the special end of any religious order, then this end being presupposed, a greater or lesser degree of poverty is adapted to that religious order; and each religious order will be the more perfect in respect of poverty, according as it professes a poverty more adapted to its end. For it is evident that for the purpose of the outward and bodily works of the active life a man needs the assistance of outward things, whereas few are required for contemplation. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that "many things are needed for action, and the more so, the greater and nobler the actions are. But the contemplative man requires no such things for the exercise of his act: he needs only the necessaries; other things are an obstacle to his contemplation." Accordingly it is clear that a religious order directed to the bodily actions of the active life, such as soldiering or the lodging of guests, would be imperfect if it lacked common riches; whereas those religious orders which are directed to the contemplative life are the more perfect, according as the poverty they profess burdens them with less care for temporal things. And the care of temporal things is so much a greater obstacle to religious life as the religious life requires a greater care of spiritual things.
Now it is manifest that a religious order established for the purpose of contemplating and of giving to others the fruits of one's contemplation by teaching and preaching, requires greater care of spiritual things than one that is established for contemplation only. Wherefore it becomes a religious order of this kind to embrace a poverty that burdens one with the least amount of care. Again it is clear that to keep what one has acquired at a fitting time for one's necessary use involves the least burden of care. Wherefore a threefold degree of poverty corresponds to the three aforesaid degrees of religious life. For it is fitting that a religious order which is directed to the bodily actions of the active life should have an abundance of riches in common; that the common possession of a religious order directed to contemplation should be more moderate, unless the said religious be bound, either themselves or through others, to give hospitality or to assist the poor; and that those who aim at giving the fruits of their contemplation to others should have their life most exempt from external cares; this being accomplished by their laying up the necessaries of life procured at a fitting time. This, our Lord, the Founder of poverty, taught by His example. For He had a purse which He entrusted to Judas, and in which were kept the things that were offered to Him, as related in John 12:6.
Nor should it be argued that Jerome (Super Matth. xvii, 26) says: "If anyone object that Judas carried money in the purse, we answer that He deemed it unlawful to spend the property of the poor on His own uses," namely by paying the tax--because among those poor His disciples held a foremost place, and the money in Christ's purse was spent chiefly on their needs. For it is stated (John 4:8) that "His disciples were gone into the city to buy meats," and (John 13:29) that the disciples "thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: But those things which we have need of for the festival day, or that he should give something to the poor." From this it is evident that to keep money by, or any other common property for the support of religious of the same order, or of any other poor, is in accordance with the perfection which Christ taught by His example. Moreover, after the resurrection, the disciples from whom all religious orders took their origin kept the price of the lands, and distributed it according as each one had need (Acts 4:34, 35).
Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 184, A. 3, ad 1), this saying of our Lord does not mean that poverty itself is perfection, but that it is the means of perfection. Indeed, as shown above (Q. 186, A. 8), it is the least of the three chief means of perfection; since the vow of continence excels the vow of poverty, and the vow of obedience excels them both. Since, however, the means are sought not for their own sake, but for the sake of the end, a thing is better, not for being a greater instrument, but for being more adapted to the end. Thus a physician does not heal the more the more medicine he gives, but the more the medicine is adapted to the disease. Accordingly it does not follow that a religious order is the more perfect, according as the poverty it professes is more perfect, but according as its poverty is more adapted to the end both common and special. Granted even that the religious order which exceeds others in poverty be more perfect in so far as it is poorer, this would not make it more perfect simply. For possibly some other religious order might surpass it in matters relating to continence, or obedience, and thus be more perfect simply, since to excel in better things is to be better simply.
Reply Obj. 2: Our Lord's words (Matt. 6:34), "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," do not mean that we are to keep nothing for the morrow; for the Blessed Antony shows the danger of so doing, in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. ii, 2), where he says: "It has been our experience that those who have attempted to practice the privation of all means of livelihood, so as not to have the wherewithal to procure themselves food for one day, have been deceived so unawares that they were unable to finish properly the work they had undertaken." And, as Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxiii), "if this saying of our Lord, 'Be not solicitous for tomorrow,' means that we are to lay nothing by for the morrow, those who shut themselves up for many days from the sight of men, and apply their whole mind to a life of prayer, will be unable to provide themselves with these things." Again he adds afterwards: "Are we to suppose that the more holy they are, the less do they resemble the birds?" And further on (De oper. Monach. xxiv): "For if it be argued from the Gospel that they should lay nothing by, they answer rightly: Why then did our Lord have a purse, wherein He kept the money that was collected? Why, in days long gone by, when famine was imminent, was grain sent to the holy fathers? Why did the apostles thus provide for the needs of the saints?"
Accordingly the saying: "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," according to Jerome (Super Matth.) is to be rendered thus: "It is enough that we think of the present; the future being uncertain, let us leave it to God": according to Chrysostom [*Hom. xvi in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "It is enough to endure the toil for necessary things, labor not in excess for unnecessary things": according to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "When we do any good action, we should bear in mind not temporal things which are denoted by the morrow, but eternal things."
Reply Obj. 3: The saying of Jerome applies where there are excessive riches, possessed in private as it were, or by the abuse of which even the individual members of a community wax proud and wanton. But they do not apply to moderate wealth, set by for the common use, merely as a means of livelihood of which each one stands in need. For it amounts to the same that each one makes use of things pertaining to the necessaries of life, and that these things be set by for the common use.
Reply Obj. 4: Isaac refused to accept the offer of possessions, because he feared lest this should lead him to have excessive wealth, the abuse of which would be an obstacle to religious perfection. Hence Gregory adds (Dial. iii, 14): "He was as afraid of forfeiting the security of his poverty, as the rich miser is careful of his perishable wealth." It is not, however, related that he refused to accept such things as are commonly necessary for the upkeep of life.
Reply Obj. 5: The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5, 6) that bread, wine, and the like are natural riches, while money is artificial riches. Hence it is that certain philosophers declined to make use of money, and employed other things, living according to nature. Wherefore Jerome shows by the words of our Lord, Who equally forbade both, that it comes to the same to have money and to possess other things necessary for life. And though our Lord commanded those who were sent to preach not to carry these things on the way, He did not forbid them to be possessed in common. How these words of our Lord should be understood has been shown above (Q. 185, A. 6 ad 2; I-II, Q. 108, A. 2, ad 3). _______________________
EIGHTH
* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 70, Article 3
[I-II, Q. 70, Art. 3]
Whether the Fruits Are Suitably Enumerated by the Apostle?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fruits are unsuitably enumerated by the Apostle (Gal. 5:22, 23). Because, elsewhere, he says that there is only one fruit of the present life; according to Rom. 6:22: "You have your fruit unto sanctification." Moreover it is written (Isa. 27:9): "This is all the fruit . . . that the sin . . . be taken away." Therefore we should not reckon twelve fruits.
Obj. 2: Further, fruit is the product of spiritual seed, as stated (A. 1). But Our Lord mentions (Matt. 13:23) a threefold fruit as growing from a spiritual seed in a good ground, viz. "hundredfold, sixtyfold," and "thirtyfold." Therefore one should not reckon twelve fruits.
Obj. 3: Further, the very nature of fruit is to be something ultimate and delightful. But this does not apply to all the fruits mentioned by the Apostle: for patience and long-suffering seem to imply a painful object, while faith is not something ultimate, but rather something primary and fundamental. Therefore too many fruits are enumerated.
Obj. 4: On the other hand, It seems that they are enumerated insufficiently and incompletely. For it has been stated (A. 2) that all the beatitudes may be called fruits; yet not all are mentioned here. Nor is there anything corresponding to the acts of wisdom, and of many other virtues. Therefore it seems that the fruits are insufficiently enumerated.
_I answer that,_ The number of the twelve fruits enumerated by the Apostle is suitable, and that there may be a reference to them in the twelve fruits of which it is written (Apoc. 22:2): "On both sides of the river was the tree bearing twelve fruits." Since, however, a fruit is something that proceeds from a source as from a seed or root, the difference between these fruits must be gathered from the various ways in which the Holy Ghost proceeds in us: which process consists in this, that the mind of man is set in order, first of all, in regard to itself; secondly, in regard to things that are near it; thirdly, in regard to things that are below it.
Accordingly man's mind is well disposed in regard to itself when it has a good disposition towards good things and towards evil things. Now the first disposition of the human mind towards the good is effected by love, which is the first of our emotions and the root of them all, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 4). Wherefore among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, we reckon "charity," wherein the Holy Ghost is given in a special manner, as in His own likeness, since He Himself is love. Hence it is written (Rom. 5:5): "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us." The necessary result of the love of charity is joy: because every lover rejoices at being united to the beloved. Now charity has always actual presence in God Whom it loves, according to 1 John 4:16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in Him": wherefore the sequel of charity is "joy." Now the perfection of joy is peace in two respects. First, as regards freedom from outward disturbance; for it is impossible to rejoice perfectly in the beloved good, if one is disturbed in the enjoyment thereof; and again, if a man's heart is perfectly set at peace in one object, he cannot be disquieted by any other, since he accounts all others as nothing; hence it is written (Ps. 118:165): "Much peace have they that love Thy Law, and to them there is no stumbling-block," because, to wit, external things do not disturb them in their enjoyment of God. Secondly, as regards the calm of the restless desire: for he does not perfectly rejoice, who is not satisfied with the object of his joy. Now peace implies these two things, namely, that we be not disturbed by external things, and that our desires rest altogether in one object. Wherefore after charity and joy, "peace" is given the third place. In evil things the mind has a good disposition, in respect of two things. First, by not being disturbed whenever evil threatens: which pertains to "patience"; secondly, by not being disturbed, whenever good things are delayed; which belongs to "long suffering," since "to lack good is a kind of evil" (Ethic. v, 3).
Man's mind is well disposed as regards what is near him, viz. his neighbor, first, as to the will to do good; and to this belongs _goodness._ Secondly, as to the execution of well-doing; and to this belongs _benignity,_ for the benign are those in whom the salutary flame (_bonus ignis_) of love has enkindled the desire to be kind to their neighbor. Thirdly, as to his suffering with equanimity the evils his neighbor inflicts on him. To this belongs _meekness,_ which curbs anger. Fourthly, in the point of our refraining from doing harm to our neighbor not only through anger, but also through fraud or deceit. To this pertains _faith,_ if we take it as denoting fidelity. But if we take it for the faith whereby we believe in God, then man is directed thereby to that which is above him, so that he subject his intellect and, consequently, all that is his, to God.
Man is well disposed in respect of that which is below him, as regards external action, by _modesty,_ whereby we observe the _mode_ in all our words and deeds: as regards internal desires, by _continency_ and _chastity:_ whether these two differ because chastity withdraws man from unlawful desires, continency also from lawful desires: or because the continent man is subject to concupiscence, but is not led away; whereas the chaste man is neither subject to, nor led away from them.
Reply Obj. 1: Sanctification is effected by all the virtues, by which also sins are taken away. Consequently fruit is mentioned there in the singular, on account of its being generically one, though divided into many species which are spoken of as so many fruits.
Reply Obj. 2: The hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold fruits do not differ as various species of virtuous acts, but as various degrees of perfection, even in the same virtue. Thus continency of the married state is said to be signified by the thirtyfold fruit; the continency of widowhood, by the sixtyfold; and virginal continency, by the hundredfold fruit. There are, moreover, other ways in which holy men distinguish three evangelical fruits according to the three degrees of virtue: and they speak of three degrees, because the perfection of anything is considered with respect to its beginning, its middle, and its end.
Reply Obj. 3: The fact of not being disturbed by painful things is something to delight in. And as to faith, if we consider it as the foundation, it has the aspect of being ultimate and delightful, in as much as it contains certainty: hence a gloss expounds thus: "Faith, which is certainly about the unseen."
Reply Obj. 4: As Augustine says on Gal. 5:22, 23, "the Apostle had no intention of teaching us how many (either works of the flesh, or fruits of the Spirit) there are; but to show how the former should be avoided, and the latter sought after." Hence either more or fewer fruits might have been mentioned. Nevertheless, all the acts of the gifts and virtues can be reduced to these by a certain kind of fittingness, in so far as all the virtues and gifts must needs direct the mind in one of the above-mentioned ways. Wherefore the acts of wisdom and of any gifts directing to good, are reduced to charity, joy and peace. The reason why he mentions these rather than others, is that these imply either enjoyment of good things, or relief from evils, which things seem to belong to the notion of fruit. ________________________
FOURTH
*S Part 3, Ques 152, Article 5
[II-II, Q. 152, Art. 5]
Whether Virginity Is the Greatest of Virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that virginity is the greatest of virtues. For Cyprian says (De Virgin. [*De Habitu Virg.]): "We address ourselves now to the virgins. Sublime is their glory, but no less exalted is their vocation. They are a flower of the Church's sowing, the pride and ornament of spiritual grace, the most honored portion of Christ's flock."
Obj. 2: Further, a greater reward is due to the greater virtue. Now the greatest reward is due to virginity, namely the hundredfold fruit, according to a gloss on Matt. 13:23. Therefore virginity is the greatest of the virtues.
Obj. 3: Further, the more a virtue conforms us to Christ, the greater it is. Now virginity above all conforms us to Christ; for it is declared in the Apocalypse (14:4) that virgins "follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth," and (Apoc. 14:3) that they sing "a new canticle," which "no" other "man" could say. Therefore virginity is the greatest of the virtues.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Virgin. xlvi): "No one, methinks, would dare prefer virginity to martyrdom," and (De Virgin. xlv): "The authority of the Church informs the faithful in no uncertain manner, so that they know in what place the martyrs and the holy virgins who have departed this life are commemorated in the Sacrament of the Altar." By this we are given to understand that martyrdom, and also the monastic state, are preferable to virginity.
_I answer that,_ A thing may excel all others in two ways. First, in some particular genus: and thus virginity is most excellent, namely in the genus of chastity, since it surpasses the chastity both of widowhood and of marriage. And because comeliness is ascribed to chastity antonomastically, it follows that surpassing beauty is ascribed to chastity. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Virgin. i, 7): "Can anyone esteem any beauty greater than a virgin's, since she is beloved of her King, approved by her Judge, dedicated to her Lord, consecrated to her God?" Secondly, a thing may be most excellent simply, and in this way virginity is not the most excellent of the virtues. Because the end always excels that which is directed to the end; and the more effectively a thing is directed to the end, the better it is. Now the end which renders virginity praiseworthy is that one may have leisure for Divine things, as stated above (A. 4). Wherefore the theological virtues as well as the virtue of religion, the acts of which consist in being occupied about Divine things, are preferable to virginity. Moreover, martyrs work more mightily in order to cleave to God--since for this end they hold their own life in contempt; and those who dwell in monasteries--since for this end they give up their own will and all that they may possess--than virgins who renounce venereal pleasure for that same purpose. Therefore virginity is not simply the greatest of virtues.
Reply Obj. 1: Virgins are "the more honored portion of Christ's flock," and "their glory more sublime" in comparison with widows and married women.
Reply Obj. 2: The hundredfold fruit is ascribed to virginity, according to Jerome [*Ep. cxxiii ad Ageruch.], on account of its superiority to widowhood, to which the sixtyfold fruit is ascribed, and to marriage, to which is ascribed the thirtyfold fruit. But according to Augustine (De QQ. Evang. i, 9), "the hundredfold fruit is given to martyrs, the sixtyfold to virgins, and the thirtyfold to married persons." Wherefore it does not follow that virginity is simply the greatest of virtues, but only in comparison with other degrees of chastity.
Reply Obj. 3: Virgins "follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth," because they imitate Christ, by integrity not only of the mind but also of the flesh, as Augustine says (De Virgin. xxvii). Wherefore they follow the Lamb in more ways, but this does not imply that they follow more closely, because other virtues make us cleave to God more closely by imitation of the mind. The "new hymn" which virgins alone sing, is their joy at having preserved integrity of the flesh. _______________________
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
4:26
And he said: So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the earth,
*H Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field.
Ver. 24. Another parable he proposed. As in the preceding parable our Lord spoke of those who did not receive the word, so in this he speaks of those who receive the corrupted word; for it is a diabolical machination to confound error with truth. S. Chrys. ex D. Tho. — There are three things worthy of observation in this parable. 1st. That the Church of God on earth consists of both good and bad; the 2d. that God is not the author of evil; the 3d. that God does not always punish the wicked on the spot, but patiently bears with them. M.
*H But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.
Ver. 25. Were asleep. When the superiors or pastors of the Church were lulled asleep or negligent, or, when the apostles were dead, as S. Augustine expounds it, the devil spread the tares or error and sin amongst a great number of Christians. These falling from the state of grace, or becoming heretics, are yet mingled with the rest of the faithful in the same outward profession of Christianity, not unlike the good corn and cockle in the same field.
*H And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle?
Ver. 27. Then the servants. S. Chrysostom observes, there are many circumstances in the parables that have no connexion with the instruction designed to be conveyed in the parables, and which are merely added to connect the different parts together.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 10, Article 8
[II-II, Q. 10, Art. 8]
Whether Unbelievers Ought to Be Compelled to the Faith?
Objection 1: It would seem that unbelievers ought by no means to be compelled to the faith. For it is written (Matt. 13:28) that the servants of the householder, in whose field cockle had been sown, asked him: "Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?" and that he answered: "No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it": on which passage Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Matth.): "Our Lord says this so as to forbid the slaying of men. For it is not right to slay heretics, because if you do you will necessarily slay many innocent persons." Therefore it seems that for the same reason unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith.
Obj. 2: Further, we read in the Decretals (Dist. xlv can., De Judaeis): "The holy synod prescribes, with regard to the Jews, that for the future, none are to be compelled to believe." Therefore, in like manner, neither should unbelievers be compelled to the faith.
Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) that "it is possible for a man to do other things against his will, but he cannot believe unless he is willing." Therefore it seems that unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith.
Obj. 4: It is said in God's person (Ezech. 18:32 [*Ezech. 33:11]): "I desire not the death of the sinner [Vulg.: 'of him that dieth']." Now we ought to conform our will to the Divine will, as stated above (I-II, Q. 19, AA. 9, 10). Therefore we should not even wish unbelievers to be put to death.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 14:23): "Go out into the highways and hedges; and compel them to come in." Now men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy Church, by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the faith.
_I answer that,_ Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.
On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.
Reply Obj. 1: Some have understood the authority quoted to forbid, not the excommunication but the slaying of heretics, as appears from the words of Chrysostom. Augustine too, says (Ep. ad Vincent. xciii) of himself: "It was once my opinion that none should be compelled to union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone, not by words of contradiction, but by convincing examples. Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say: Thanks be to the Lord Who has broken our chains asunder." Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord's words, "Suffer both to grow until the harvest," must be gathered from those which precede, "lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it." For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) "these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man's crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken."
Reply Obj. 2: Those Jews who have in no way received the faith, ought not by no means to be compelled to the faith: if, however, they have received it, they ought to be compelled to keep it, as is stated in the same chapter.
Reply Obj. 3: Just as taking a vow is a matter of will, and keeping a vow, a matter of obligation, so acceptance of the faith is a matter of the will, whereas keeping the faith, when once one has received it, is a matter of obligation. Wherefore heretics should be compelled to keep the faith. Thus Augustine says to the Count Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "What do these people mean by crying out continually: 'We may believe or not believe just as we choose. Whom did Christ compel?' They should remember that Christ at first compelled Paul and afterwards taught Him."
Reply Obj. 4: As Augustine says in the same letter, "none of us wishes any heretic to perish. But the house of David did not deserve to have peace, unless his son Absalom had been killed in the war which he had raised against his father. Thus if the Catholic Church gathers together some of the perdition of others, she heals the sorrow of her maternal heart by the delivery of so many nations." _______________________
NINTH
*H And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.
Ver. 29. No, lest, &c. The prayers of repenting sinners are never despised. We are taught also by this example not to cut off too hastily a fallen brother; for, whatever he may be to-day, to-morrow perhaps he may see his error and embrace the truth. S. Jerom. — Jesus Christ exhorts us to bear with infidels and heretics, not on our own account only, as wicked men are frequently of use to the virtuous, but also on their account; for sometimes the persons who have been corrupted and perverted, will return to the paths of virtue and truth. Let, therefore, both grow until the harvest, i.e. to the day of judgment, when the power of rectifying another's error shall be no more. S. Aug. ex D. Tho. — When many are implicated in one misfortune, what remains but to bewail their condition. Let us then be willing to correct our brethren to the utmost of our power, but let it be always with mercy, charity and compassion; what we cannot correct, let us bear with patience, permitting what God permits, and interceding with him to move and convert their hearts. But when an opportunity offers, let us publicly advocate the truth, and condemn error. S. Jer. — S. Augustine affirms, that no one should be compelled by force to an unity of religious tenets: such as dissent for us must be persuaded by words, overcome by argumentation, and convinced by reason. S. Thos. Aquin.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 108, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 108, Art. 1]
Whether Vengeance Is Lawful?
Objection 1: It seems that vengeance is not lawful. For whoever usurps what is God's sins. But vengeance belongs to God, for it is written (Deut. 32:35, Rom. 12:19): "Revenge to Me, and I will repay." Therefore all vengeance is unlawful.
Obj. 2: Further, he that takes vengeance on a man does not bear with him. But we ought to bear with the wicked, for a gloss on Cant. 2:2, "As the lily among the thorns," says: "He is not a good man that cannot bear with a wicked one." Therefore we should not take vengeance on the wicked.
Obj. 3: Further, vengeance is taken by inflicting punishment, which is the cause of servile fear. But the New Law is not a law of fear, but of love, as Augustine states (Contra Adamant. xvii). Therefore at least in the New Testament all vengeance is unlawful.
Obj. 4: Further, a man is said to avenge himself when he takes revenge for wrongs inflicted on himself. But, seemingly, it is unlawful even for a judge to punish those who have wronged him: for Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "Let us learn after Christ's example to bear our own wrongs with magnanimity, yet not to suffer God's wrongs, not even by listening to them." Therefore vengeance seems to be unlawful.
Obj. 5: Further, the sin of a multitude is more harmful than the sin of only one: for it is written (Ecclus. 26:5-7): "Of three things my heart hath been afraid . . . the accusation of a city, and the gathering together of the people, and a false calumny." But vengeance should not be taken on the sin of a multitude, for a gloss on Matt. 13:29, 30, "Lest perhaps . . . you root up the wheat . . . suffer both to grow," says that "a multitude should not be excommunicated, nor should the sovereign." Neither therefore is any other vengeance lawful.
_On the contrary,_ We should look to God for nothing save what is good and lawful. But we are to look to God for vengeance on His enemies: for it is written (Luke 18:7): "Will not God revenge His elect who cry to Him day and night?" as if to say: "He will indeed." Therefore vengeance is not essentially evil and unlawful.
_I answer that,_ Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another's evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Rom. 12:21): "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good."
If, however, the avenger's intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.
Reply Obj. 1: He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Rom. 13:4) of the earthly prince that "he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God's and therefore sins.
Reply Obj. 2: The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God's wrongs is most wicked."
Reply Obj. 3: The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the Gospel, ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, but only those who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.
Reply Obj. 4: Sometimes a wrong done to a person reflects on God and the Church: and then it is the duty of that person to avenge the wrong. For example, Elias made fire descend on those who were come to seize him (4 Kings 1); likewise Eliseus cursed the boys that mocked him (4 Kings 2); and Pope Sylverius excommunicated those who sent him into exile (XXIII, Q. iv, Cap. Guilisarius). But in so far as the wrong inflicted on a man affects his person, he should bear it patiently if this be expedient. For these precepts of patience are to be understood as referring to preparedness of the mind, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i).
Reply Obj. 5: When the whole multitude sins, vengeance must be taken on them, either in respect of the whole multitude--thus the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea while they were pursuing the children of Israel (Ex. 14), and the people of Sodom were entirely destroyed (Gen. 19)--or as regards part of the multitude, as may be seen in the punishment of those who worshipped the calf.
Sometimes, however, if there is hope of many making amends, the severity of vengeance should be brought to bear on a few of the principals, whose punishment fills the rest with fear; thus the Lord (Num. 25) commanded the princes of the people to be hanged for the sin of the multitude.
On the other hand, if it is not the whole but only a part of the multitude that has sinned, then if the guilty can be separated from the innocent, vengeance should be wrought on them: provided, however, that this can be done without scandal to others; else the multitude should be spared and severity foregone. The same applies to the sovereign, whom the multitude follow. For his sin should be borne with, if it cannot be punished without scandal to the multitude: unless indeed his sin were such, that it would do more harm to the multitude, either spiritually or temporally, than would the scandal that was feared to arise from his punishment. _______________________
SECOND
*S Part 3, Ques 108, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 108, Art. 3]
Whether Vengeance Should Be Wrought by Means of Punishments Customary Among Men?
Objection 1: It seems that vengeance should not be wrought by means of punishments customary among men. For to put a man to death is to uproot him. But our Lord forbade (Matt. 13:29) the uprooting of the cockle, whereby the children of the wicked one are signified. Therefore sinners should not be put to death.
Obj. 2: Further, all who sin mortally seem to be deserving of the same punishment. Therefore if some who sin mortally are punished with death, it seems that all such persons should be punished with death: and this is evidently false.
Obj. 3: Further, to punish a man publicly for his sin seems to publish his sin: and this would seem to have a harmful effect on the multitude, since the example of sin is taken by them as an occasion for sin. Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.
_On the contrary,_ These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, Q. 105, A. 2).
_I answer that,_ Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil. Now some who are not influenced by motive of virtue are prevented from committing sin, through fear of losing those things which they love more than those they obtain by sinning, else fear would be no restraint to sin. Consequently vengeance for sin should be taken by depriving a man of what he loves most. Now the things which man loves most are life, bodily safety, his own freedom, and external goods such as riches, his country and his good name. Wherefore, according to Augustine's reckoning (De Civ. Dei xxi), "Tully writes that the laws recognize eight kinds of punishment": namely, "death," whereby man is deprived of life; "stripes," "retaliation," or the loss of eye for eye, whereby man forfeits his bodily safety; "slavery," and "imprisonment," whereby he is deprived of freedom; "exile" whereby he is banished from his country; "fines," whereby he is mulcted in his riches; "ignominy," whereby he loses his good name.
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners.
Reply Obj. 2: All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.
Reply Obj. 3: The very fact that the punishment, whether of death or of any kind that is fearsome to man, is made known at the same time as the sin, makes man's will avers to sin: because the fear of punishment is greater than the enticement of the example of sin. _______________________
FOURTH
*Lapide
, bind them together in bundles, which S. Gregory explains thus: "The angel-reapers bind the tares in bundles for burning, when they join like with like in similar torments as the proud with the proud, the luxurious with the luxurious, liars with liars, unbelievers with unbelievers that they may burn together." And shall cast them , c. The furnace denotes that the damned shall be confined in hell as in a furnace, as wood and straw are confined in a furnace. Then shall the righteous , c. Then , because now, says Remigius the just shine for an example to others; but then they shall shine as the sun for the praise of God. He alludes to Daniel xii 3: "They that are learned (Heb. mascilim , i.e ., wise and prudent such, namely, as shall live wisely and prudently) shall shine as the splendour of the firmament; and they that shall instruct many to justice, as the stars for everlasting eternities." See what I have there said. From this passage some heretics were of opinion, that in the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into globes, so as to be like the solar orb. The emperor Justinian ascribes this heresy to Origen, and condemns it. (See Baronius, tom. 7, A. C. 538, pp. 289 and 293.) The kingdom of Heaven is like , c. For he who knows that a treasure is lying hid in any place, and buys the place, becomes the master of the treasure, and is not bound to point it out to the former owner, but may use his knowledge for his own advantage by buying the field for as much as it is worth by common estimation; with which the hid treasure has nothing to do. Which when a man has found. The Greek has the Aorist, εύρὼν . Observe: Christ, in the preceding four parables (namely, of the Sower, of the Seed, of the Grain of Mustard, and of Leaven) has declared the nature, power, and efficacy of the Gospel; now, in the two following parables, of the Treasure, and of the Pearl, He declares its price, how great it is, that all things are deservedly counted as loss in comparison of it. So SS. Chrysostom, Hilary, and others. In a similar way, Wisdom is spoken of by Solomon in the Proverbs (viii. 11, 19): "For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it . . . My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver." Literally. By this treasure S. Jerome understands Christ Himself; and S. Augustine, Holy Scripture. ( Quest. in Matt. q. 13). "For when anyone has attained partly to the understanding of it, he feels great mysteries lie hid in it, and he sells all he has, and buys it; that is, by despising things temporal, he procures rest for himself, that he may be rich in the knowledge of God." Tropologically. S. Gregory, by the treasure, understands heavenly desire. He says: "The treasure being found is hid that it may be preserved, because it is not enough for a man to guard the zeal of his heavenly desire from the wicked spirits, who does not hide the same from the praise of men. In this present life we are, as it were, in a road, by which we are going to our country. Wicked spirits, like robbers, beset our path. He, therefore, who openly carries his treasure in the way desires to be robbed of it." Again the kingdom of Heaven , c. goodly ; Syriac, the best ; Arabic, a good gem. He means the faithful ought with as great zeal to provide themselves with the doctrine and life of the Gospel (which is the way and the price of the kingdom of Heaven) as a merchant seeks for pearls, and buys the one of them which is most precious: for otherwise the kingdom, or the Gospel itself, is properly compared to a pearl rather than to a merchant man. And when he had found , c. For as this pearl was beyond all price, so is the Gospel. See Pliny on the price of pearls ( l. 9, 35), where he says, among other things, that pearls have greater affinity with the sky than with the sea. See what I have said on the Apocalypse xxi. 21 ( Rev 21:21 ), where I have enumerated thirteen properties of pearls. Symbolically. The precious pearl is Christ, also the Blessed Virgin, also the religious state, also charity: "for charity is a precious pearl, without which nothing can profit thee, whatsoever thou mayst have," says S. Augustine. For charity is the necklace of Christ. Also a precious pearl is the contemplative life, concerning which Christ said of the Magdalene, "Mary hath chosen the good part." A pearl is, also, the soul of every man. It is also eternal felicity, as our Salmeron appositely shows ( tom . vii. tract. 11); for all these are principal parts of the kingdom of Heaven, i.e ., of the doctrine of the Gospel. Such, likewise, is humility, even as our Thomas teaches, being taught of God himself ( Imitat. Christi. l. 1, c. 2): "If thou wishest profitably to know and to learn anything, love to be unknown, and to be counted as nothing. This is the loftiest and most useful knowledge truly to know and despise thy self." This is the most precious Gospel pearl, but its worth is unknown to the proud children of Adam. Such also is the Cross of Christ, and to suffer for Christ. See Hab 3:4 : "There were horns in His hands; there was His strength hid." ( Vulg .) The chief and most precious pearl of all, from which all virtues and all the Saints, like pearls are sprung, and from which they derive their beauty and their value, is Christ Himself. For His Deity in His Humanity is as a pearl hid in a shell. It issued forth of the substance of the Virgin, and the dew of the Spirit, most white, through innocence of life. It was exceeding bright through wisdom; round through the possession of all perfection; having the weight of conscience, the smoothness of meekness, the price of blessedness. For says Pliny, "The value of pearls consists in whiteness, size, rotundity, smoothness and weight." Hear what S. Augustine says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God: for the Word of the Lord shines with the brightness of truth, and is solid with the firmness of eternity, and is every where alike with the beauty of Divinity: when the shell of the flesh is pierced through, God may be perceived." This pearl of Christ, says our Salmeron, is small by humility, but precious in value. Let us bear it on the head of our mind by way of ornament; on our forehead by confessing the faith; in our ears by obedience to the Law, obedience rendered to God in Himself, and our Superiors; on our necks and breasts by love; on our arms by the exercise of good works; in rings on our hands by the gift of discerning spirits; in our girdles by chastity; on our garments by modesty and holy devotion to eternal life; but we ourselves also may become precious pearls, and by this means may induce others to imitate the most holy life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Finally Christ is not only a very precious pearl, but He is also the gem of gems. He is a carbuncle, because He is the light of the world. He is an emerald because He delights the angels by the verdure of His grace. He is strong and invincible as a diamond. He produces joy as a sardius. He heals the leprosy of sin as a chrysoprasus. He assists the bringing forth of good works as a spiritual jasper; He sharpens the intellect as a beryl; He has celestial colour and life, as a sapphire; He resists sleep and drunkenness, as an amethyst; and all the infirmities of the mind, as a hyacinth; He sustained the worry of the passions, as a topaz: He is a sardonyx in brightness and splendour; He is a chrysolite in His golden charity. Whence the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem are laid with these twelve precious stones, which signify the twelve Apostles of Christ. Again the kingdom of Heaven is like to a drag-net , c. The two preceding parables, those viz. of the Treasure and the Pearl denoted the value and dignity of the Gospel. This parable shows its capaciousness, viz. that it embraces all nations and people of the world, bad as well as good. Christ propounded the parable with this object, that the Apostles and Saints should not wonder, if among the faithful they beheld some living wickedly, just as in a great kingdom no one is surprised that murderers, thieves and adulterers are found. Again it was spoken in order that no one should flatter himself, simply on account of being a believing Christian since there are in the Church many who are wicked; but that he should give diligence to be just and holy in the Church. A drag-net : Gr. σαγήνη , signifying the kind of net commonly called a drag or trawling-net , because of its sweeping the water or the sea in order to catch the fishes. Properly this sagene or drag-net is the bosom of the net. In like manner all the faithful are, as it were, received into the maternal bosom of the Church, and there are cherished, nourished and preserved. Of every kind : for thus the Gospel is preached to all nations, and of them the Church is formed. The fishes are believers, the fisher-men are the Apostles, and the drag-net is the Church and the Gospel. Which, when it was full , c., cast the bad away. They cast them into the sea, or upon the shore. The Arabic is, They colleted the select fish in their vessels. The vessels denote the various mansions in the house of our Father, as Christ says, ( Joh 14:2 ), or the various abodes of Heaven, which, in another place are called the eternal tabernacles. The bad , Gr. σαπρὰ , i.e ., putrid, decaying, noisome. From this passage S. Augustine rightly proves against the Donatists that in the Church there are not only good people, or as Calvin says, the elect, but bad and reprobate people. So shall it be in the end of the world , c. Arabic, in the end of this time , that is to say, in the day of judgment. He saith unto them, therefore every Scribe , c. It is as though He said, Forasmuch as ye, O ye Apostles, have understood by these My parables, how great a treasure the kingdom of Heaven is, ye ought to draw forth all things from this treasury, that ye may communicate them to others; yea, to the whole world. Again: because ye have understood my method of teaching the things of Heaven, and things which are new to men, by means of parables borrowed from things in common use; ye too ought to teach and preach the same things in the same manner, that from the old things, which they do understand, they may receive and learn those new things which ye preach. A Scribe ; Arabic, a Scribe, who teathes for the kingdom of heaven, i.e ., an Evangelical doctor well instructed to announce the Gospel, and lead believers to the kingdom of Heaven; such as ye are, and shall be, O ye Apostles, who are fully taught by Me and the Holy Spirit. He opposes His own Scribes, i.e ., Doctors and Preachers, His Apostles in fact, to the Scribes of the Jews, which last only preached the law of Moses, and the earthly advantages flowing from it. Things new and old. This is a proverb, signifying every kind of food, substance, or goods necessary or useful for sustaining a family. Some of these things are best when new, others when old. Hence the proverb, "New honey, old wine;" i.e ., honey is best when fresh, but the oldest wine is the best. Hence too the verse in Pindar's ninth Olympic Hymn, "Praise old wine, but the flowers of new Hymns." The meaning is As the father of a family provides for his household things new and old, i.e ., everything necessary and useful, so ought a Gospel teacher to bring forth, at suitable times, according to the capacity of his hearers, various discourses, knowledge of every kind; and especially to take care to teach them the new and unknown mysteries of the Gospel, by means of old examples, such as parables and similitudes, which his hearers can take in. Moreover, some of the ancients, as SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, and Bede apply old and new to the Old and New Testaments. For that is the best preaching when the New Testament is confirmed and illustrated from the Old, and proved to be in all points typically agreeable to it. For the Old Testament was the type of the New; the New Testament is the antetype of the Old. Abul. objects that when Christ said this, the New Testament was not written. I reply that it was already spoken and taught by Christ, and was shortly about to be written by the four Evangelists; and that Christ knew this. Wherefore He bids the Apostles that they should preach themselves what they had heard, but that their successors should preach the same things as written by the Evangelists. Jesus passed on from thence, i.e ., from His house which He had at Capernaum. And came unto his own country , c. This country was not Bethlehem where He was born, but Nazareth, where he was brought up. Is not this the son of the carpenter , c. The Gr. is, the son of the workman, the Arab. adds, in wood. S. Mark (Mar 6:3 .) Is not this she workman ? "Nor is it to be wondered at," says S. Augustine, "since both might be said, for they believed Him to be a workman, in that he was the son of a workman." This was because they were accustomed to see Him working with Joseph. It seems therefore that Christ wrought with His father Joseph until He was thirty years of age, when He began to teach and to preach. SS. Hilary and Ambrose think that Christ was a blacksmith; Hugo, a mason, or a goldsmith. The general opinion is that Christ was a carpenter, as S. Thomas, teaches out of S. Chrysostom. S. Justin ( Dial. c. Tryph .) says, "He was accustomed to make ploughs and yokes for oxen." Hence Christ in His preaching often takes His similitudes from those objects, as, "Take my yoke upon you," and, "No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Hence too when a Christian was asked in derision by Julian the Apostate, "what the Son of the Carpenter was doing;" answered wittily, "He is making a bier for Julian." This was shortly before Julian was slain, ( See Sozomen. l. 6. c. 2.) Some however say that Christ did not exercise a workman's craft. But I have said more on this subject on S. Luk 2:51 . Mystically : "God is the workman who is the Father of Christ, who framed the works of the whole world, who built the ark of Noah, who set in order the Tabernacle of Moses, who instituted the ark of the Covenant. You might call Him a carpenter, who planes down a rigid mind, and cuts away proud thoughts." ( Serm. de Nat .) Moreover, says S. Chrysologus ( Serm . 48.) "Christ was the son of a workman; but of Him, who made the frame of the universe, not by a hammer, but by His command; who disposed the composition of the elements, not by skill but by His command; who kindled the sun not by earthly fire, but by His supreme heat; who made all things out of nothing, and made them, O man, for thee, that thou mightest reflect upon the artificer by considering His work." And His brethren, James , c. Brethren , i.e ., cousins , as I have said Chap. xii. 45. James : This is James the less, called the son of Alphæus, an Apostle, and first Bishop of Jerusalem. I have spoken more at length concerning him in the preface to his Canonical Epistle. And Joseph : The Greek and Syriac have Joses. He was one of the seventy disciples. See what I have said about him on Acts i. 23. And Simon : Many think from Abdia, Sophronius, Isidore. and Bede, that this was Simon the Canaanite, the Apostle. As though this last had been the brother of James the less and Jude. But Simon the Apostle came from Cana of Galilee; but these brethren, that is, cousins of Christ, were sprung from Nazareth, together with Christ Himself. Wherefore the inhabitants of Nazareth wondered from whence there was in Jesus, their fellow citizen, such great wisdom, since they knew his brethren and relations to be simple and unlearned persons, as is plain from Mark vi. 1., c. It seems therefore more probable that this Simon is the S. Simeon who succeeded S. James as Bishop of Jerusalem. For Simeon was the son of Cleophas and his wife Mary, as Hegesippus testifies ( Eus. H.E . 3. 11.), whom SS. Chrysostom and Theophylact teach to have been the brother of S. James the less. Although Hegesippus and Epiphanius ( Hæres. 66.) are of opinion that he was not the brother, but the cousin of James. He was that Simeon, who was crucified in the tenth year of Trajan, when he was 120 years old, A.D. 109; and astonished everyone by his constancy and fortitude. From this it follows that those writers who thought him to be the same person as Simon the Canaanite are mistaken. And Jude. He was a brother of James the less. I have spoken of him in the preface to his Epistle. You will ask whether these four were brethren, strictly so called, born of the same father and mother? In the first place, it is plain that James and Joses were brothers. This appears from Matt. xxvii. 56. As to the other two, Simon and Jude, some think they were brothers of James and Joses, but on the mother's side only. They say that their mother was the Mary who was first married to Alphæus, to whom she bore James and Joses, and that therefore James is called of Alp æus , that is, his son; and after Alphæus was dead, she married Cleophas, to whom she bore Simon and Jude. Thus S. Thomas ( c . 1 , ad. Galat. Lect 5). 2. Baronius ( apparat. Annal. c. 46) considers there were three sisters i.e ., cousins of the Blessed Virgin of the name of Mary. The first, Mary, the wife of Alphæus, and the mother of James and Jude (the Apostles), and Jo* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 11, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 11, Art. 3]
Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated?
Objection 1: It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:24, 25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.
Obj. 2: Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.
Obj. 3: Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matt. 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Titus 3:10, 11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."
_I answer that,_ With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Reply Obj. 1: This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.
Reply Obj. 2: The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.
Reply Obj. 3: According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (Q. 10, A. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general. _______________________
FOURTH
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
4:31
It is as a grain of mustard seed: which when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that are in the earth:
-
*
Luke
13:19
It is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and cast into his garden: and it grew and became a great tree, and the birds of the air lodged in the branches thereof.
*Lapide
. The kingdom of Heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed , c. Instead of the birds of the heaven lodge in the branches of it the Arabic has they are overshadowed by its branches. This is Christ's third parable, the occasion and cause of which S. Chrysostom gives as follows: "Because the Lord had said that of the seed three parts perish, and one is preserved, and again of that which is preserved, there is great loss on account of the tares which are sown above it, lest people should say, who then and how many will believe? he removes this fear by the parable of the grain of mustard seed, and therefore it is said, Another parable put He forth unto them, the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed , c." You will enquire in the first place, what it is which is here compared to the kingdom of Heaven, and likened to a grain of mustard seed? 1. S. Hilary understands it of Christ Himself. He says, "The Lord compares Himself to a grain of mustard seed, which is very sharp and the least of all seeds, and whose virtue and power are increased by bruising and pressure. After this grain had been sown in the field, when it was taken by the people and delivered to death, as though in a field by a sort of sowing, there was the burial of its body, it grew above the measure of all herbs, and exceeded the glory of all the prophets. For like a herb the preaching of the prophets was given to Israel as being sick: but now in the branches of the tree, raised from the ground on high, the birds of the air dwell: by these we understand the Apostles, lifted up by the power of Christ, and they overshadow the world with their branches. To them the Gentiles flew for the hope of life; and when they are vexed with whirlwinds, that is by the blasts of the devil, they rest as in the branches of a tree." In like manner S. Gregory ( lib. 19 Moral. c. 11.) expounds this whole parable, "Christ Himself is the grain of mustard seed, who was planted in the sepulchre of the garden, and rose again a mighty tree. He was but a grain when He died; a tree when He rose again. A grain through lowliness of the flesh; a tree by the power of His majesty. A grain, because we saw Him, and there was no comeliness; but a tree because He was fairer than the children of men. The branches of this tree are sacred preachers. And let us see how widely they are spread. For what is spoken concerning them? Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world. The birds rest in their branches, because holy souls who lift up themselves from earthly thoughts by the wings, as it were, of virtues are refreshed after the fatigue of this life by their words and their consolations." You will say, how can Christ be called the kingdom of Heaven, when He is not the kingdom, but its King? It is replied: as a king is as it were the head in a kingdom, so a kingdom is as the body of a king. Wherefore a king represents the whole state or kingdom. Hence according to the rule of Ticonius, often in Scripture what belongs to the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ, is attributed to Christ, and vice versa. 2. More plainly and aptly, the kingdom of Heaven and the grain of mustard seed are the Church, especially the Primitive Church. You will enquire, (2). Why the Gospel is compared to a grain of mustard seed, and what are the resemblances between the two things? I answer, the first is that Christ by this parable intends to signify the immense power and fruitfulness of Evangelical preaching, insomuch that what had a very small beginning with Christ, and by a few Apostles, diffused itself over the whole world. For a grain of mustard seed is less than all seeds, i.e ., the least of all seeds; as the Syriac and Arabic have it. The Greek is μικρότερον πάντων σπερμάτων , i.e ., less than all seeds , meaning very little. This must be understood according to the common usage of speech, by which we call what is very little, or one of very small things, the least ; for otherwise to speak precisely, poppy seed, and the seed of rue, and of some other herbs, is less than mustard seed. Thus the preaching of the Gospel by Christ and the Apostles was at first very circumscribed. 2. A grain of mustard seed, especially in Syria, grows into a tree, so that birds dwell Syriac, build their nests in its branches. Thus the Gospel grew, and filled the whole world, so that the birds of Heaven, i.e ., men lofty in knowledge and understanding as well as kings and princes dwelt in its branches. (See Dan 4:9 and Dan 4:19 ). Some understand by the birds, the angels, because they have wings, and are very swift. Hear S. Augustine ( Serm. 33 de Sanc .). "Peter is a branch; Paul is a branch; blessed Laurence, whose festal day we are celebrating, is a branch. All the Apostles and martyrs of the Saviour are branches; and if anyone will bravely lay hold of them, they will escape being drowned in the waves of the world. He who dwells under their shadow shall not feel the fire of hell, and shall be secure from the storm of the tempest of the devil, and from being burnt up in the day of judgment." 3. And chiefly by mustard is denoted the igneous force and efficacy of the Gospel. "Pythagoras," says Pliny ( l. 20, c. 22), "considered that mustard holds the chief place amongst those things whose force is borne upward; since there is nothing which more thoroughly penetrates the nose and the brain." A grain of mustard refers to the fervour of faith, says S. Augustine. 4. Mustard seed must be bruised; for when it is bruised it emits its igneous force and flavour. Thus the preaching of the Gospel was as it were bruised by a thousand oppressions and persecutions, which the Apostles suffered; and then it breathed forth its igneous force and strength. 5. Mustard seed, as Pliny says, is sharp and biting. It draws tears, purges away phlegm and cerebral secretions; it is masticated for toothache; when bruised and mixed with vinegar it is applied to the stings of scorpions and the bites of snakes; it is an antidote to the poison of fungi; it is beneficial for the breast and lungs; it is useful against epilepsy, dropsy, asthma, lethargy, and many other diseases. Thus the Gospel expels poisons, that is sins, by the emetic of confession; it is sharp and biting, because it teaches penance and the cross; it excites the tears of compunction; it is medicine for all the faculties of the soul, and especially it dries up concupiscence, and animates to virtue. "The bitterness of its words is the medicine of souls," says S. Augustine. 6. Mustard seed by its sharpness seasons food, and renders it palatable. So also the Gospel renders palatable everything which is hard and difficult by means of the example of Christ, and by the hope of future glory which it promises. S. Augustine says, "A grain of mustard seed is great, not in appearance, but in virtue. At first appearance it seems small, worthless, despised, not possessing savour, nor odour, nor sweetness; but when it is bruised, it sheds abroad its odour and exhales nourishment of a fiery taste. It is so inflamed with the fervour of heat that there might be enclosed in it so much fire, by which men could (especially in the winter-time) drive away cold, and warm themselves inwardly." After this he applies the qualities of mustard to the Gospel and the Christian faith, thus: "Thus too the Christian faith, at first sight, appears small and worthless, not manifesting its power, not carrying any semblance of pride, neither furnishing grace. But as soon as it begins to be bruised by divers temptations, immediately it manifests its vigour, it indicates its sharpness, it breathes the warmth of belief in the Lord, and is possessed with so great ardour of divine fire, that both itself is hot and it compels those who participate to be fervent also. As the two disciples said in the Gospel, when the Lord spoke with them after His Passion, "Did not our hearts burn within us by the way, while the Lord Jesus opened to us the Scriptures?" A grain of mustard, then, warms the inward members of our body, but the power of faith burns up the sins of our heart. The one indeed takes away piercing cold; the other expels the devil's frost of transgressions. A grain of mustard, I say, purges away corporeal humours, but faith puts an end to the flux of lusts. By the one, medicine is gained for the head; but by faith our spiritual Head, Christ the Lord, is often refreshed. Moreover, we enjoy the sacred odour of faith, according to the analogy of mustard seed, as the blessed Apostle saith, "We are a sweet savour of Christ unto God." Tropologically ; All these things may be applied to a faithful soul, and especially to an Apostle, and to a suffering Christian, or to a martyr. Wherefore the Church adapts this parable to S. Laurence, as the Gospel for his festival. As S. Augustine says, in the work already cited, "We may compare the holy martyr Laurence to a grain of mustard seed; for he, being bruised by various sufferings, deserved to become fragrant throughout the whole world by the grace of his martyrdom. He, when he was in the body, was humble, unknown, and held in low estimation; but after he had been bruised, torn, and burnt he diffused the odour of his nobleness in the churches in all the world. Rightly, therefore, is the comparison applied to him. For Laurence, when he suffers, is inflamed. The fervour of its attrition moves the one; Laurence breathes forth fire in his manifold tribulations. Mustard, I say, is cooked in a small vessel; Laurence is roasted on the gridiron by the fiery flame. Blessed Laurence the martyr was burnt outwardly by the flames of the raging tyrant, but he was inflamed inwardly by the far greater fire of the love of Christ." The Arabians have a proverb "A grain of pepper is more powerful than many large gourds;" because if it be bruised it emits a fiery force, and makes itself felt in everyone's nostrils. You may say the same of a grain of mustard. A believer, therefore, should be a grain of pepper or mustard, and breathe everywhere, and upon all, a divine fire, and so pepper all men, and make them like himself, zealous that is, and ardent in the love of God. Another parable , c. This is Christ's fourth parable, of leaven, by which (as by the former parable) He shows the power and efficacy of the preaching of the Gospel. As S. Chrysostom says, "Like as leaven communicates its own virtue to a great quantity of meal, so shall ye, O ye Apostles, transforn the whole world." S. Chrysostom observes, with regard to the word hid : "Thus also ye, when ye shall be subjected to your persecutors, shall overcome them. And as leaven indeed is buried but not destroyed, but by degrees transforms everything to its own state; so shall it happen with your preaching. Do not ye, therefore, fear because I said, Many troubles shall happen unto you; for by this means shall ye shine, and shall overcome all." You will ask why Christ compares the Gospel to leaven? I reply, because leaven is a portion of the meal that has become a little sour, which takes place through fermentation. Hear how Pliny describes the manner in which leaven is made ( l 18, c. 11): "Now" (because formerly it was made in another way, as he had related a little before) "leaven is made of the meal itself, which is first kneaded before salt is added, after the manner of pottage, and left until it becomes a little sour. Commonly, indeed, they do not warm it, but only make use of what has been kept from the day before. And evidently it is the nature of heat to cause fermentation; as of bodies that are nourished with fermented bread to become stronger. Thus it was, that among our ancestors the greatest healthiness was attributed to the heaviest wheat." Again, leaven, although it be small in bulk, with its heat moistens the whole mass of dough; and as it were effects a change in its entire substance. It makes it palatable and digestible, so that it becomes wholesome bread for nourishing, sustaining and strengthening man. In like manner the Gospel by means of a few Apostles, who suffered many tribulations, converts the whole world to itself and makes the heart of each to be warmed with the love of God. The woman who kneads is the Church, or the power and wisdom of God says S. Augustine. Tropologically : S. Augustine says, "Christ calls love leaven, because it excites to warmth. The woman he calls wisdom. By the three measures of meal we may understand either these three things in man the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind; or the three degrees of fruit-bearing, an hundred, sixty, and thirty fold; or the three sorts of men, represented by Noah, Daniel and Job." ( l 1. q. q. Evang. q. 12.) Rabanus adds, "He says until the whole was leavened: because charity being hid in our minds ought to grow there until it transmutes the whole mind into its own perfection: that which is begun here, is perfected hereafter." S. Ambrose says, that like as leaven is disseminated through the whole mass of the meal, being as it were broken up; "so Christ was broken, torn and dissolved by His various sufferings: and His moisture, that is His precious Blood was poured out for our salvation, that it might by mingling itself with the whole human race, consolidate that race, which lay scattered abroad." See also S. Chrysostom, who says among other things, "If twelve men leavened nearly all the meal of the world, consider diligently in your minds, how great must be our wickedness and sloth, who, although we are so many, are not able to convert the remnant of the Gentiles, when we ought to be sufficient for a thousand worlds." S. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, was wont to weep over the same thing. His was the saying, "That formerly priests of gold celebrated in chalices of wood, but now wooden priests celebrate in golden chalices." Three measures : a measure was equal in quality to a bath which is a liquid measure, containing an Italian bushel, or as S. Jerome and Josephus say, a bushel and a half. The measure contained three Attic bushels. These three measures are the quarters of the world, Asia, Africa, Europe. These were designated by the three sons of Noah. For the posterity of Shem inhabited Asia; the posterity of Ham, Africa; and of Japhet, Europe. So Cæsarius, brother of S. Gregory Nazianzen. ( Dial. 4.) Symbolically ; S. Hilary says, the grace of the Gospel was hid in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets; now it hath appeared in the faith, hope and love of the Holy Trinity, that what the Law constituted, and the Prophets announced, the same might be fulfilled by the advent of the Gospels. Or as others say, that it might be confirmed by the threefold work of God, viz. of creation, redemption and glorification. Allegorically : S. Bernard, ( l. 5. de Consider .) says the Blessed Virgin joined and united in her womb the three natures of Christ, namely soul, body and divinity to the one Hypostasis of the Word. All these things spake Jesus in parables , meaning in a parabolical manner: things kept secret , Heb. הידות chidoth , i.e. enigmas , as the Chaldee trans. and S. Jerome (Psa 78:2 .). The Arabic has, I will speak things hidden before the foundation of the world. Christ cites the psalm of David, Psa 78:2 (lxxviii. 2), who, according to the letter, through the whole psalm, celebrates God's benefits to the Synagogue, i.e ., the people of Israel, from the beginning , i.e. from their going forth out of Egypt under Moses their leader, until David's own time, in order that he might stir up the people to be grateful to God, and to love and worship Him. But mystically, says S. Jerome, David was there a type of Christ, who celebrates the benefits granted by God through Himself to His Church, and before-time hid. These things were concerning the promised land in heaven, mysteries declared by parables. Observe that the Hebrew word for parables is mashal , which signifies any weighty and famous saying, such a one as predominates over others. For mashal means to rule: thus it came to signify what was obscure and recondite, whether it were an enigma, an allegory, a parable, or a sentence properly so called. Therefore the sentences in that seventy-eighth Psalm are not properly parables, but only weighty sentences. But here there are like weighty sentences and parables properly so called. Thus this verse of the Psalm applies to Christ in both its meanings, but to David only one of them. For in Scripture many things are spoken which are more suitable to the things signified by the allegory, than to the allegory itself and its literal meaning. When the multitudes were sent away , c., . . . declare unto us the parable of the tares. For this seemed more obscure than the others, and to contain severer threats.*H Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.
Ver. 32. The least of all seeds. That is, it is one of the least seeds; but in hot countries it is observed to grow to a considerable height, and to become a bush or a little tree. Wi. — The gospel of Christ, compared in this verse to the grain of mustard seed, has indeed little show of grandeur and human greatness. S. Paul calls it a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling block to the Gentile. But Jesus Christ here assures us, that when it has been spread and promulgated by his ambassadors, viz. the apostles, it shall surpass every other mode of instruction both in fame and extent. S. Amb. S. Jer. S. Aug.
* Footnotes
-
*
Luke
13:21
It is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
*H Another parable he spoke to them: The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.
Ver. 33. In three measures. Sata, the word here used, was a particular Hebrew measure, which corresponds not to any particular measure that we make use of, and therefore I have put measures, as it is in other English translations. See Walton de Ponderibus & mensuris, before his first tome, p. 42. Wi. — It was the Seah of the Jews, the third part of the Epha, and contained about ten pints, and appears to be the ordinary quantity they baked at a time. V. — By the woman here mentioned, S. Jerom understands the Church gathered from all nations; or the power and wisdom of God, according to S. Augustine.
* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 81, Article 2
[I, Q. 81, Art. 2]
Whether the Sensitive Appetite Is Divided into the Irascible and Concupiscible As Distinct Powers?
Objection 1: It would seem that the sensitive appetite is not divided into the irascible and concupiscible as distinct powers. For the same power of the soul regards both sides of a contrariety, as sight regards both black and white, according to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 11). But suitable and harmful are contraries. Since, then, the concupiscible power regards what is suitable, while the irascible is concerned with what is harmful, it seems that irascible and concupiscible are the same power in the soul.
Obj. 2: Further, the sensitive appetite regards only what is suitable according to the senses. But such is the object of the concupiscible power. Therefore there is no sensitive appetite differing from the concupiscible.
Obj. 3: Further, hatred is in the irascible part: for Jerome says on Matt. 13:33: "We ought to have the hatred of vice in the irascible power." But hatred is contrary to love, and is in the concupiscible part. Therefore the concupiscible and irascible are the same powers.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Natura Hominis) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) assign two parts to the sensitive appetite, the irascible and the concupiscible.
_I answer that,_ The sensitive appetite is one generic power, and is called sensuality; but it is divided into two powers, which are species of the sensitive appetite--the irascible and the concupiscible. In order to make this clear, we must observe that in natural corruptible things there is needed an inclination not only to the acquisition of what is suitable and to the avoiding of what is harmful, but also to resistance against corruptive and contrary agencies which are a hindrance to the acquisition of what is suitable, and are productive of harm. For example, fire has a natural inclination, not only to rise from a lower position, which is unsuitable to it, towards a higher position which is suitable, but also to resist whatever destroys or hinders its action. Therefore, since the sensitive appetite is an inclination following sensitive apprehension, as natural appetite is an inclination following the natural form, there must needs be in the sensitive part two appetitive powers--one through which the soul is simply inclined to seek what is suitable, according to the senses, and to fly from what is hurtful, and this is called the concupiscible: and another, whereby an animal resists these attacks that hinder what is suitable, and inflict harm, and this is called the irascible. Whence we say that its object is something arduous, because its tendency is to overcome and rise above obstacles. Now these two are not to be reduced to one principle: for sometimes the soul busies itself with unpleasant things, against the inclination of the concupiscible appetite, in order that, following the impulse of the irascible appetite, it may fight against obstacles. Wherefore also the passions of the irascible appetite counteract the passions of the concupiscible appetite: since the concupiscence, on being aroused, diminishes anger; and anger being roused, diminishes concupiscence in many cases. This is clear also from the fact that the irascible is, as it were, the champion and defender of the concupiscible when it rises up against what hinders the acquisition of the suitable things which the concupiscible desires, or against what inflicts harm, from which the concupiscible flies. And for this reason all the passions of the irascible appetite rise from the passions of the concupiscible appetite and terminate in them; for instance, anger rises from sadness, and having wrought vengeance, terminates in joy. For this reason also the quarrels of animals are about things concupiscible--namely, food and sex, as the Philosopher says [*De Animal. Histor. viii.].
Reply Obj. 1: The concupiscible power regards both what is suitable and what is unsuitable. But the object of the irascible power is to resist the onslaught of the unsuitable.
Reply Obj. 2: As in the apprehensive powers of the sensitive part there is an estimative power, which perceives those things which do not impress the senses, as we have said above (Q. 78, A. 2); so also in the sensitive appetite there is a certain appetitive power which regards something as suitable, not because it pleases the senses, but because it is useful to the animal for self-defense: and this is the irascible power.
Reply Obj. 3: Hatred belongs simply to the concupiscible appetite: but by reason of the strife which arises from hatred, it may belong to the irascible appetite. _______________________
THIRD
*S Part 1, Ques 82, Article 5
[I, Q. 82, Art. 5]
Whether We Should Distinguish Irascible and Concupiscible Parts in the Superior Appetite?
Objection 1: It would seem that we ought to distinguish irascible and concupiscible parts in the superior appetite, which is the will. For the concupiscible power is so called from "concupiscere" (to desire), and the irascible part from "irasci" (to be angry). But there is a concupiscence which cannot belong to the sensitive appetite, but only to the intellectual, which is the will; as the concupiscence of wisdom, of which it is said (Wis. 6:21): "The concupiscence of wisdom bringeth to the eternal kingdom." There is also a certain anger which cannot belong to the sensitive appetite, but only to the intellectual; as when our anger is directed against vice. Wherefore Jerome commenting on Matt. 13:33 warns us "to have the hatred of vice in the irascible part." Therefore we should distinguish irascible and concupiscible parts of the intellectual soul as well as in the sensitive.
Obj. 2: Further, as is commonly said, charity is in the concupiscible, and hope in the irascible part. But they cannot be in the sensitive appetite, because their objects are not sensible, but intellectual. Therefore we must assign an irascible and concupiscible power to the intellectual part.
Obj. 3: Further, it is said (De Spiritu et Anima) that "the soul has these powers"--namely, the irascible, concupiscible, and rational--"before it is united to the body." But no power of the sensitive part belongs to the soul alone, but to the soul and body united, as we have said above (Q. 78, AA. 5, 8). Therefore the irascible and concupiscible powers are in the will, which is the intellectual appetite.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom.) says that the irrational part of the soul is divided into the desiderative and irascible, and Damascene says the same (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). And the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 9) "that the will is in reason, while in the irrational part of the soul are concupiscence and anger," or "desire and animus."
_I answer that,_ The irascible and concupiscible are not parts of the intellectual appetite, which is called the will. Because, as was said above (Q. 59, A. 4; Q. 79, A. 7), a power which is directed to an object according to some common notion is not differentiated by special differences which are contained under that common notion. For instance, because sight regards the visible thing under the common notion of something colored, the visual power is not multiplied according to the different kinds of color: but if there were a power regarding white as white, and not as something colored, it would be distinct from a power regarding black as black.
Now the sensitive appetite does not consider the common notion of good, because neither do the senses apprehend the universal. And therefore the parts of the sensitive appetite are differentiated by the different notions of particular good: for the concupiscible regards as proper to it the notion of good, as something pleasant to the senses and suitable to nature: whereas the irascible regards the notion of good as something that wards off and repels what is hurtful. But the will regards good according to the common notion of good, and therefore in the will, which is the intellectual appetite, there is no differentiation of appetitive powers, so that there be in the intellectual appetite an irascible power distinct from a concupiscible power: just as neither on the part of the intellect are the apprehensive powers multiplied, although they are on the part of the senses.
Reply Obj. 1: Love, concupiscence, and the like can be understood in two ways. Sometimes they are taken as passions--arising, that is, with a certain commotion of the soul. And thus they are commonly understood, and in this sense they are only in the sensitive appetite. They may, however, be taken in another way, as far as they are simple affections without passion or commotion of the soul, and thus they are acts of the will. And in this sense, too, they are attributed to the angels and to God. But if taken in this sense, they do not belong to different powers, but only to one power, which is called the will.
Reply Obj. 2: The will itself may be said to [be] irascible, as far as it wills to repel evil, not from any sudden movement of a passion, but from a judgment of the reason. And in the same way the will may be said to be concupiscible on account of its desire for good. And thus in the irascible and concupiscible are charity and hope--that is, in the will as ordered to such acts. And in this way, too, we may understand the words quoted (De Spiritu et Anima); that the irascible and concupiscible powers are in the soul before it is united to the body (as long as we understand priority of nature, and not of time), although there is no need to have faith in what that book says. Whence the answer to the third objection is clear. _______________________
*S Part 2, Ques 23, Article 1
[I-II, Q. 23, Art. 1]
Whether the Passions of the Concupiscible Part Are Different from Those of the Irascible Part?
Objection 1: It would seem that the same passions are in the irascible and concupiscible parts. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that the passions of the soul are those emotions "which are followed by joy or sorrow." But joy and sorrow are in the concupiscible part. Therefore all the passions are in the concupiscible part, and not some in the irascible, others in the concupiscible part.
Obj. 2: Further, on the words of Matt. 13:33, "The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven," etc., Jerome's gloss says: "We should have prudence in the reason; hatred of vice in the irascible faculty; desire of virtue, in the concupiscible part." But hatred is in the concupiscible faculty, as also is love, of which it is the contrary, as is stated in _Topic._ ii, 7. Therefore the same passion is in the concupiscible and irascible faculties.
Obj. 3: Further, passions and actions differ specifically according to their objects. But the objects of the irascible and concupiscible passions are the same, viz. good and evil. Therefore the same passions are in the irascible and concupiscible faculties.
_On the contrary,_ The acts of the different powers differ in species; for instance, to see, and to hear. But the irascible and the concupiscible are two powers into which the sensitive appetite is divided, as stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2). Therefore, since the passions are movements of the sensitive appetite, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3), the passions of the irascible faculty are specifically distinct from those of the concupiscible part.
_I answer that,_ The passions of the irascible part differ in species from those of the concupiscible faculty. For since different powers have different objects, as stated in the First Part (Q. 77, A. 3), the passions of different powers must of necessity be referred to different objects. Much more, therefore, do the passions of different faculties differ in species; since a greater difference in the object is required to diversify the species of the powers, than to diversify the species of passions or actions. For just as in the physical order, diversity of genus arises from diversity in the potentiality of matter, while diversity of species arises from diversity of form in the same matter; so in the acts of the soul, those that belong to different powers, differ not only in species but also in genus, while acts and passions regarding different specific objects, included under the one common object of a single power, differ as the species of that genus.
In order, therefore, to discern which passions are in the irascible, and which in the concupiscible, we must take the object of each of these powers. For we have stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2), that the object of the concupiscible power is sensible good or evil, simply apprehended as such, which causes pleasure or pain. But, since the soul must, of necessity, experience difficulty or struggle at times, in acquiring some such good, or in avoiding some such evil, in so far as such good or evil is more than our animal nature can easily acquire or avoid; therefore this very good or evil, inasmuch as it is of an arduous or difficult nature, is the object of the irascible faculty. Therefore whatever passions regard good or evil absolutely, belong to the concupiscible power; for instance, joy, sorrow, love, hatred, and such like: whereas those passions which regard good or bad as arduous, through being difficult to obtain or avoid, belong to the irascible faculty; such are daring, fear, hope and the like.
Reply Obj. 1: As stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2), the irascible faculty is bestowed on animals, in order to remove the obstacles that hinder the concupiscible power from tending towards its object, either by making some good difficult to obtain, or by making some evil hard to avoid. The result is that all the irascible passions terminate in the concupiscible passions: and thus it is that even the passions which are in the irascible faculty are followed by joy and sadness which are in the concupiscible faculty.
Reply Obj. 2: Jerome ascribes hatred of vice to the irascible faculty, not by reason of hatred, which is properly a concupiscible passion; but on account of the struggle, which belongs to the irascible power.
Reply Obj. 3: Good, inasmuch as it is delightful, moves the concupiscible power. But if it prove difficult to obtain, from this very fact it has a certain contrariety to the concupiscible power: and hence the need of another power tending to that good. The same applies to evil. And this power is the irascible faculty. Consequently the concupiscible passions are specifically different from the irascible passions. ________________________
SECOND
*S Part 4, Ques 74, Article 4
[III, Q. 74, Art. 4]
Whether This Sacrament Ought to Be Made of Unleavened Bread?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened bread. Because in this sacrament we ought to imitate Christ's institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated "before the festival day of the Pasch" (John 13:1, 4). Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.
Obj. 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the Law, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.
Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1; Q. 73, A. 3), the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity is signified by fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on Matt. 13:33: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread.
Obj. 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread, which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the bread be unleavened or leavened.
_On the contrary,_ According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread and a wooden cup."
_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament, namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above (A. 3). It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either.
But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account of Christ's institution: for He instituted this sacrament "on the first day of the Azymes" (Matt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Luke 22:7), on which day there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is stated in Ex. 12:15, 19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament of Christ's body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than of His Godhead, as will be seen later (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 1). Thirdly, because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful, which is required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Cor. 5:7: "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on account of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel.
Reply Obj. 1: As we read in Ex. 12, the paschal solemnity began on the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after immolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three Evangelists call it "the first day of the Azymes," when fermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated above. Fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on our Lord's Passion (Q. 46, A. 9, ad 1).
Reply Obj. 2: Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to Christ's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.
Reply Obj. 3: Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect, because it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also signifies corruption from its very nature.
Reply Obj. 4: Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, this sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above (A. 3, ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly used for the sacrament. _______________________
FIFTH
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 42, Article 3
[III, Q. 42, Art. 3]
Whether Christ Should Have Taught All Things Openly?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have taught all things openly. For we read that He taught many things to His disciples apart: as is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper. Wherefore He said: "That which you heard in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the housetops" [*St. Thomas, probably quoting from memory, combines Matt. 10:27 with Luke 12:3]. Therefore He did not teach all things openly.
Obj. 2: Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to the perfect, according to 1 Cor. 2:6: "We speak wisdom among the perfect." Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom. Therefore it should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd.
Obj. 3: Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether by saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to understand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they would not understand, hid from them the truth that He preached; since "without parables He did not speak to them" (Matt. 13:34). In the same way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all.
_On the contrary,_ He says Himself (John 18:20): "In secret I have spoken nothing."
_I answer that,_ Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways. First, on the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish to make his doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this may happen in two ways--sometimes through envy on the part of the teacher, who desires to excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is unwilling to communicate it to others. But this was not the case with Christ, in whose person the following words are spoken (Wis. 7:13): "Which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I hide not." But sometimes this happens through the vileness of the things taught; thus Augustine says on John 16:12: "There are some things so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear them." Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is written (Prov. 9:17): "Stolen waters are sweeter." Now, Christ's doctrine is "not of error nor of uncleanness" (1 Thess. 2:3). Wherefore our Lord says (Mk. 4:21): "Doth a candle," i.e. true and pure doctrine, "come in to be put under a bushel?"
Secondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus, again, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded His entire doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples gathered together. Hence Augustine says on John 18:20: "How can it be said that He speaks in secret when He speaks before so many men? . . . especially if what He says to few He wishes through them to be made known to many?"
Thirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is propounded. And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to the crowds, by employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries which they were either unable or unworthy to grasp: and yet it was better for them to be instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things, albeit hidden under the garb of parables, than to be deprived of it altogether. Nevertheless our Lord expounded the open and unveiled truth of these parables to His disciples, so that they might hand it down to others worthy of it; according to 2 Tim. 2:2: "The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others." This is foreshadowed, Num. 4, where the sons of Aaron are commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the Levites.
Reply Obj. 1: As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted, "we do not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound His doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is darkness to the carnal-minded, and His words are night to the unbeliever. His meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also should say in the midst of unbelievers, by openly believing and professing it."
Or, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively--that is to say, because He was instructing them in Judea, which was a small place compared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be published by the preaching of the apostles.
Reply Obj. 2: By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all the depths of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to His disciples, to whom He said (John 16:12): "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Yet whatever things out of His wisdom He judged it right to make known to others, He expounded, not in secret, but openly; although He was not understood by all. Hence Augustine says on John 18:20: "We must understand this, 'I have spoken openly to the world,' as though our Lord had said, 'Many have heard Me' . . . and, again, it was not 'openly,' because they did not understand."
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in parables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked truth, which He revealed to His disciples.
And when it is said that "without parables He did not speak to them," according to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we are to understand this of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many things to the multitude without parables. Or, as Augustine says (De Qq. Evang., qu. xvii), this means, "not that He spoke nothing literally, but that He scarcely ever spoke without introducing a parable, although He also spoke some things in the literal sense." _______________________
FOURTH
* Footnotes
-
*
Psalms
77:2
I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter propositions from the beginning.
*H That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.
Ver. 35. By the prophet. It is taken from Psalm lxxvii. 2. S. Jerom remarks that many copies have, Isaias, the prophet, but supposes that the evangelist wrote, Asaph, the prophet, to whom the title of this psalm seems to attribute it; but it was probably chanted by Asaph, and composed by David, who is simply characterized under the name of prophet, because he prophesied in composing his canticles. V.
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
4:34
And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.
*Lapide
The field is the world, c. The field is the world, not the Church; for by the tares of this field many understand heretics, who are not in the Church, especially when they are public and manifest. Children of the kingdom : These are faithful, righteous, and persevering in justice, and therefore elected by God to be heirs of the kingdom of Heaven. Whence, in verse 43, they are called the righteous. These are the sons of the Heavenly Father, "which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( Joh 1:13 ). Observe: the righteous are here called seed, because although the seed which Christ sows is the Word of God, spoken as well outwardly by the lips, as inwardly in the heart by grace; nevertheless, because the fruit of this seed is the conversion of the faithful, and their justification, therefore the righteous also are called seed, i.e ., the fruit of the seed, and the harvest. But the tares , c. Gr. υίοὶ του̃ πονηρου̃, i.e ., the says of that wicked, namely the devil : thus the Syriac and Arabic. Therefore they themselves are evil, for the offspring follow their father. As the sons of God are good and divine, so are the sons of the devil wicked and diabolical. Observe: by tares and children of the wicked one, some understand heretics, because they are the most injurious kind of tares, inasmuch as they choke and destroy the faithful and faith from their foundation. So S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Augustine (4 quest. in Matth. q . 11) who, however, retracts ( l . 2 Retract. c. 27) and teaches from S. Cyprian, that tares denote all the wicked in the Church. SS. Gregory, Ambrose, and Theophylact teach the same. For all wicked persons, by their evil life, hurt the faithful and the Church, as tares injure wheat, and choke it. Falsely then from this passage ( verse 29), where Christ forbids these tares to be plucked up, and subjoins, Let both grow together , the Innovators infer that heretics are not to be punished and extirpated. For by parity of reasoning they might conclude that murderers and thieves must not be punished; for they too are tares. And I say that Christ does not here absolutely forbid these tares to be plucked up, but says that no one must attempt to root them all up together; nor at a time when they came to be distinguished from the wheat; or when there is danger of pulling up the wheat at the same time with them. But all this does not apply when anyone is a manifest heretic, especially if he teaches and infects others with his heresy. For such a one does more harm to the Church than a murderer, for the one only kills the body, but the other the soul. See 1 Cor. v. 13, Gal. v. 12, where the Apostle commands impious persons, especially false teachers, to be taken away and extirpated. Thus Origen and S. Augustine the latter indeed was at first of opinion that heretics ought not to be put to death, yea, that they ought not even to be compelled to resume the faith, which they have professed in baptism. But afterwards, which he had been taught by experience how perverse and obstinate heretics are, he changed his opinion and taught the contrary. He says, "I had not yet learnt either what great wickedness they would venture upon, if they could do it with impunity; or how much careful discipline could effect to make a change in them for the better." ( l. 2, cont. Parmen. c. 2, and 2 Retract. c. 5). The harvest , c. For then shall God by the angels reap the harvest of all men, bad as well as good; and shall sever them in the day of judgment, gathering the good into the heavenly barn, and delivering the evil to the fire of hell. Whence it follows that separation shall be effected by the ministry of the angels. Therefore it is said below, that the Son of Man shall come to judgment with the angels. And shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend ; Gr. scandals, stumbling-blocks. The wicked, whom Christ previously called tares , and children of the devil , He here calls scandals ; because they are, by their wickednesses, a cause of offence and ruin both to themselves and others. S. Chrysostom observes, that the twofold punishment of the wicked is here signified the pain of loss (in that it is said, they shall collect out of His kingdom ), because they shall be shut out of Heaven; and of sense, in that it is said, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire. S. Chrysostom adds: "See the unspeakable love of God to man! He is prompt to bless them, slow to punish. When He soweth, He soweth by Himself; but when He punishes, He punishes by others: for this latter work He sends His angels." Christ adds, in verse 30, bind them together in bundles, which S. Gregory explains thus: "The angel-reapers bind the tares in bundles for burning, when they join like with like in similar torments as the proud with the proud, the luxurious with the luxurious, liars with liars, unbelievers with unbelievers that they may burn together." And shall cast them , c. The furnace denotes that the damned shall be confined in hell as in a furnace, as wood and straw are confined in a furnace. Then shall the righteous , c. Then , because now, says Remigius the just shine for an example to others; but then they shall shine as the sun for the praise of God. He alludes to Daniel xii 3: "They that are learned (Heb. mascilim , i.e ., wise and prudent such, namely, as shall live wisely and prudently) shall shine as the splendour of the firmament; and they that shall instruct many to justice, as the stars for everlasting eternities." See what I have there said. From this passage some heretics were of opinion, that in the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into globes, so as to be like the solar orb. The emperor Justinian ascribes this heresy to Origen, and condemns it. (See Baronius, tom. 7, A. C. 538, pp. 289 and 293.) The kingdom of Heaven is like , c. For he who knows that a treasure is lying hid in any place, and buys the place, becomes the master of the treasure, and is not bound to point it out to the former owner, but may use his knowledge for his own advantage by buying the field for as much as it is worth by common estimation; with which the hid treasure has nothing to do. Which when a man has found. The Greek has the Aorist, εύρὼν . Observe: Christ, in the preceding four parables (namely, of the Sower, of the Seed, of the Grain of Mustard, and of Leaven) has declared the nature, power, and efficacy of the Gospel; now, in the two following parables, of the Treasure, and of the Pearl, He declares its price, how great it is, that all things are deservedly counted as loss in comparison of it. So SS. Chrysostom, Hilary, and others. In a similar way, Wisdom is spoken of by Solomon in the Proverbs (viii. 11, 19): "For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it . . . My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver." Literally. By this treasure S. Jerome understands Christ Himself; and S. Augustine, Holy Scripture. ( Quest. in Matt. q. 13). "For when anyone has attained partly to the understanding of it, he feels great mysteries lie hid in it, and he sells all he has, and buys it; that is, by despising things temporal, he procures rest for himself, that he may be rich in the knowledge of God." Tropologically. S. Gregory, by the treasure, understands heavenly desire. He says: "The treasure being found is hid that it may be preserved, because it is not enough for a man to guard the zeal of his heavenly desire from the wicked spirits, who does not hide the same from the praise of men. In this present life we are, as it were, in a road, by which we are going to our country. Wicked spirits, like robbers, beset our path. He, therefore, who openly carries his treasure in the way desires to be robbed of it." Again the kingdom of Heaven , c. goodly ; Syriac, the best ; Arabic, a good gem. He means the faithful ought with as great zeal to provide themselves with the doctrine and life of the Gospel (which is the way and the price of the kingdom of Heaven) as a merchant seeks for pearls, and buys the one of them which is most precious: for otherwise the kingdom, or the Gospel itself, is properly compared to a pearl rather than to a merchant man. And when he had found , c. For as this pearl was beyond all price, so is the Gospel. See Pliny on the price of pearls ( l. 9, 35), where he says, among other things, that pearls have greater affinity with the sky than with the sea. See what I have said on the Apocalypse xxi. 21 ( Rev 21:21 ), where I have enumerated thirteen properties of pearls. Symbolically. The precious pearl is Christ, also the Blessed Virgin, also the religious state, also charity: "for charity is a precious pearl, without which nothing can profit thee, whatsoever thou mayst have," says S. Augustine. For charity is the necklace of Christ. Also a precious pearl is the contemplative life, concerning which Christ said of the Magdalene, "Mary hath chosen the good part." A pearl is, also, the soul of every man. It is also eternal felicity, as our Salmeron appositely shows ( tom . vii. tract. 11); for all these are principal parts of the kingdom of Heaven, i.e ., of the doctrine of the Gospel. Such, likewise, is humility, even as our Thomas teaches, being taught of God himself ( Imitat. Christi. l. 1, c. 2): "If thou wishest profitably to know and to learn anything, love to be unknown, and to be counted as nothing. This is the loftiest and most useful knowledge truly to know and despise thy self." This is the most precious Gospel pearl, but its worth is unknown to the proud children of Adam. Such also is the Cross of Christ, and to suffer for Christ. See Hab 3:4 : "There were horns in His hands; there was His strength hid." ( Vulg .) The chief and most precious pearl of all, from which all virtues and all the Saints, like pearls are sprung, and from which they derive their beauty and their value, is Christ Himself. For His Deity in His Humanity is as a pearl hid in a shell. It issued forth of the substance of the Virgin, and the dew of the Spirit, most white, through innocence of life. It was exceeding bright through wisdom; round through the possession of all perfection; having the weight of conscience, the smoothness of meekness, the price of blessedness. For says Pliny, "The value of pearls consists in whiteness, size, rotundity, smoothness and weight." Hear what S. Augustine says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God: for the Word of the Lord shines with the brightness of truth, and is solid with the firmness of eternity, and is every where alike with the beauty of Divinity: when the shell of the flesh is pierced through, God may be perceived." This pearl of Christ, says our Salmeron, is small by humility, but precious in value. Let us bear it on the head of our mind by way of ornament; on our forehead by confessing the faith; in our ears by obedience to the Law, obedience rendered to God in Himself, and our Superiors; on our necks and breasts by love; on our arms by the exercise of good works; in rings on our hands by the gift of discerning spirits; in our girdles by chastity; on our garments by modesty and holy devotion to eternal life; but we ourselves also may become precious pearls, and by this means may induce others to imitate the most holy life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Finally Christ is not only a very precious pearl, but He is also the gem of gems. He is a carbuncle, because He is the light of the world. He is an emerald because He delights the angels by the verdure of His grace. He is strong and invincible as a diamond. He produces joy as a sardius. He heals the leprosy of sin as a chrysoprasus. He assists the bringing forth of good works as a spiritual jasper; He sharpens the intellect as a beryl; He has celestial colour and life, as a sapphire; He resists sleep and drunkenness, as an amethyst; and all the infirmities of the mind, as a hyacinth; He sustained the worry of the passions, as a topaz: He is a sardonyx in brightness and splendour; He is a chrysolite in His golden charity. Whence the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem are laid with these twelve precious stones, which signify the twelve Apostles of Christ. Again the kingdom of Heaven is like to a drag-net , c. The two preceding parables, those viz. of the Treasure and the Pearl denoted the value and dignity of the Gospel. This parable shows its capaciousness, viz. that it embraces all nations and people of the world, bad as well as good. Christ propounded the parable with this object, that the Apostles and Saints should not wonder, if among the faithful they beheld some living wickedly, just as in a great kingdom no one is surprised that murderers, thieves and adulterers are found. Again it was spoken in order that no one should flatter himself, simply on account of being a believing Christian since there are in the Church many who are wicked; but that he should give diligence to be just and holy in the Church. A drag-net : Gr. σαγήνη , signifying the kind of net commonly called a drag or trawling-net , because of its sweeping the water or the sea in order to catch the fishes. Properly this sagene or drag-net is the bosom of the net. In like manner all the faithful are, as it were, received into the maternal bosom of the Church, and there are cherished, nourished and preserved. Of every kind : for thus the Gospel is preached to all nations, and of them the Church is formed. The fishes are believers, the fisher-men are the Apostles, and the drag-net is the Church and the Gospel. Which, when it was full , c., cast the bad away. They cast them into the sea, or upon the shore. The Arabic is, They colleted the select fish in their vessels. The vessels denote the various mansions in the house of our Father, as Christ says, ( Joh 14:2 ), or the various abodes of Heaven, which, in another place are called the eternal tabernacles. The bad , Gr. σαπρὰ , i.e ., putrid, decaying, noisome. From this passage S. Augustine rightly proves against the Donatists that in the Church there are not only good people, or as Calvin says, the elect, but bad and reprobate people. So shall it be in the end of the world , c. Arabic, in the end of this time , that is to say, in the day of judgment. He saith unto them, therefore every Scribe , c. It is as though He said, Forasmuch as ye, O ye Apostles, have understood by these My parables, how great a treasure the kingdom of Heaven is, ye ought to draw forth all things from this treasury, that ye may communicate them to others; yea, to the whole world. Again: because ye have understood my method of teaching the things of Heaven, and things which are new to men, by means of parables borrowed from things in common use; ye too ought to teach and preach the same things in the same manner, that from the old things, which they do understand, they may receive and learn those new things which ye preach. A Scribe ; Arabic, a Scribe, who teathes for the kingdom of heaven, i.e ., an Evangelical doctor well instructed to announce the Gospel, and lead believers to the kingdom of Heaven; such as ye are, and shall be, O ye Apostles, who are fully taught by Me and the Holy Spirit. He opposes His own Scribes, i.e ., Doctors and Preachers, His Apostles in fact, to the Scribes of the Jews, which last only preached the law of Moses, and the earthly advantages flowing from it. Things new and old. This is a proverb, signifying every kind of food, substance, or goods necessary or useful for sustaining a family. Some of these things are best when new, others when old. Hence the proverb, "New honey, old wine;" i.e ., honey is best when fresh, but the oldest wine is the best. Hence too the verse in Pindar's ninth Olympic Hymn, "Praise old wine, but the flowers of new Hymns." The meaning is As the father of a family provides for his household things new and old, i.e ., everything necessary and useful, so ought a Gospel teacher to bring forth, at suitable times, according to the capacity of his hearers, various discourses, knowledge of every kind; and especially to take care to teach them the new and unknown mysteries of the Gospel, by means of old examples, such as parables and similitudes, which his hearers can take in. Moreover, some of the ancients, as SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, and Bede apply old and new to the Old and New Testaments. For that is the best preaching when the New Testament is confirmed and illustrated from the Old, and proved to be in all points typically agreeable to it. For the Old Testament was the type of the New; the New Testament is the antetype of the Old. Abul. objects that when Christ said this, the New Testament was not written. I reply that it was already spoken and taught by Christ, and was shortly about to be written by the four Evangelists; and that Christ knew this. Wherefore He bids the Apostles that they should preach themselves what they had heard, but that their successors should preach the same things as written by the Evangelists. Jesus passed on from thence, i.e ., from His house which He had at Capernaum. And came unto his own country , c. This country was not Bethlehem where He was born, but Nazareth, where he was brought up. Is not this the son of the carpenter , c. The Gr. is, the son of the workman, the Arab. adds, in wood. S. Mark (Mar 6:3 .) Is not this she workman ? "Nor is it to be wondered at," says S. Augustine, "since both might be said, for they believed Him to be a workman, in that he was the son of a workman." This was because they were accustomed to see Him working with Joseph. It seems therefore that Christ wrought with His father Joseph until He was thirty years of age, when He began to teach and to preach. SS. Hilary and Ambrose think that Christ was a blacksmith; Hugo, a mason, or a goldsmith. The general opinion is that Christ was a carpenter, as S. Thomas, teaches out of S. Chrysostom. S. Justin ( Dial. c. Tryph .) says, "He was accustomed to make ploughs and yokes for oxen." Hence Christ in His preaching often takes His similitudes from those objects, as, "Take my yoke upon you," and, "No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Hence too when a Christian was asked in derision by Julian the Apostate, "what the Son of the Carpenter was doing;" answered wittily, "He is making a bier for Julian." This was shortly before Julian was slain, ( See Sozomen. l. 6. c. 2.) Some however say that Christ did not exercise a workman's craft. But I have said more on this subject on S. Luk 2:51 . Mystically : "God is the workman who is the Father of Christ, who framed the works of the whole world, who built the ark of Noah, who set in order the Tabernacle of Moses, who instituted the ark of the Covenant. You might call Him a carpenter, who planes down a rigid mind, and cuts away proud thoughts." ( Serm. de Nat .) Moreover, says S. Chrysologus ( Serm . 48.) "Christ was the son of a workman; but of Him, who made the frame of the universe, not by a hammer, but by His command; who disposed the composition of the elements, not by skill but by His command; who kindled the sun not by earthly fire, but by His supreme heat; who made all things out of nothing, and made them, O man, for thee, that thou mightest reflect upon the artificer by considering His work." And His brethren, James , c. Brethren , i.e ., cousins , as I have said Chap. xii. 45. James : This is James the less, called the son of Alphæus, an Apostle, and first Bishop of Jerusalem. I have spoken more at length concerning him in the preface to his Canonical Epistle. And Joseph : The Greek and Syriac have Joses. He was one of the seventy disciples. See what I have said about him on Acts i. 23. And Simon : Many think from Abdia, Sophronius, Isidore. and Bede, that this was Simon the Canaanite, the Apostle. As though this last had been the brother of James the less and Jude. But Simon the Apostle came from Cana of Galilee; but these brethren, that is, cousins of Christ, were sprung from Nazareth, together with Christ Himself. Wherefore the inhabitants of Nazareth wondered from whence there was in Jesus, their fellow citizen, such great wisdom, since they knew his brethren and relations to be simple and unlearned persons, as is plain from Mark vi. 1., c. It seems therefore more probable that this Simon is the S. Simeon who succeeded S. James as Bishop of Jerusalem. For Simeon was the son of Cleophas and his wife Mary, as Hegesippus testifies ( Eus. H.E . 3. 11.), whom SS. Chrysostom and Theophylact teach to have been the brother of S. James the less. Although Hegesippus and Epiphanius ( Hæres. 66.) are of opinion that he was not the brother, but the cousin of James. He was that Simeon, who was crucified in the tenth year of Trajan, when he was 120 years old, A.D. 109; and astonished everyone by his constancy and fortitude. From this it follows that those writers who thought him to be the same person as Simon the Canaanite are mistaken. And Jude. He was a brother of James the less. I have spoken of him in the preface to his Epistle. You will ask whether these four were brethren, strictly so called, born of the same father and mother? In the first place, it is plain that James and Joses were brothers. This appears from Matt. xxvii. 56. As to the other two, Simon and Jude, some think they were brothers of James and Joses, but on the mother's side only. They say that their mother was the Mary who was first married to Alphæus, to whom she bore James and Joses, and that therefore James is called of Alp æus , that is, his son; and after Alphæus was dead, she married Cleophas, to whom she bore Simon and Jude. Thus S. Thomas ( c . 1 , ad. Galat. Lect 5). 2. Baronius ( apparat. Annal. c. 46) considers there were three sisters i.e ., cousins of the Blessed Virgin of the name of Mary. The first, Mary, the wife of Alphæus, and the mother of James and Jude (the Apostles), and Joses. 2. Mary, the wife of Cleophas, the mother of that S. Simeon who succeeded S. James in the Bishopric of Jerusalem. The third was Mary Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of the Apostles James and John. But it is clear that Mary, the wife of Alphæus is the same as Mary the wife pf Cleophas, if we compare S. John xix. 25 with Matt. xxvii. 56, and Mar 15:40 . For John says. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." But Matthew says: "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." And Mark: "There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." We see here plainly, that she who is called by John Mary of Cleophas is called by Matthew and Mark, Mary the mother of James and Joses ; James, I say, who is called (Acts i. and Matt. x.) not the son of Zebedee, but of Alphæus. Therefore, Mary of Cleophas and Mary of Alphæus are one and the same person. Cleophas and Alphæus are really one and the same Hebrew word, by a common interchange of letters. Unless you prefer to consider that one of them was the husband, the other the father, of this Mary. Again, you may see, that she who is called Salome by Mark, is called by Matthew the mother of Zebedee's children; this, therefore, was Salome. It seems, then, that the same Mary of Cleophas, or Alphæus, was the mother of these four viz., James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. For Matthew and Mark (in the places already cited) call her the mother of James and Joses. But Jude was the brother of James, as he says himself in the beginning of his Epistle. Simon also, or Simeon, who succeeded his brother James at Jerusalem, was also a brother, for he was the son of Cleophas and Mary his wife. Moreover, Hegesippus, S. Chrysostom, and several other Fathers assert that this Mary was not the daughter, but the wife of Cleophas. And the same Hegesippus says this Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the spouse of the Blessed Virgin. He is the same Cleophas to whom, with his companion, Christ made himself known on the way to Emmaus in the breaking of bread. He was slain by the Jews, in that very house of Emmaus, on account of His confession of Christ. He died a martyr, on the 25th of Sept., as the Roman Martyrology has it. You will ask, why then do Matthew and Mark call this Mary the mother of James and Joses, but not of Simon and Jude? I reply, for the sake of brevity, and because the two first, viz., James and Joses were accounted at that time more celebrated than the other two. This Mary, the mother of so many saintly sons and daughters, died in sanctity, in Judea, on the 9th April. And his sisters , c. The sisters of James, Joses, c., are called by Hippolytus ( Ap. Niceph. l. 2. c. 3.), Esther, and Tama; but by S, Epiphanius ( Hæres 78.) and Theophylact they are called Mary, Salome who was the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of S. John and S. James the great, the Apostles, who were therefore nephews, through their sister, of James the less, Joses, c. ( See Christophor. a Castro de Deipaz. c. 1), where he shows that Salome was older than her brothers James and Jude. For she was the mother of John and James who were chosen by Christ, together with their uncles, James and Jude, to be Apostles. For John seems to have been only three years younger than Christ. Hence too, only James, Joses, Simon and Jude, the sons of Cleophas, are called brothers, i.e ., cousins of Christ, on the father's side. But John and James the sons of Zebedee, are not called brethren of Christ, because they were not first cousins of Christ, but children of His cousin Salome. Again Christophor. gathers from hence, that James the less, who was the brother of Salome, was senior to James the greater, the son of Salome and Zebedee, by nine or ten years at the least. James the less was the uncle of James the great. For they were not so called, in respect of age but of their vocation, by Christ. It is not doubtful that Christ had many other relations and connections, but these are specially mentioned, both because they were nearer in blood; and because they at length believed on Hirn, and became His Apostles. They were offended , c. This is, they were indignant that Christ, who was but a workman, should set himself up for a prophet and teacher; just as men would be offended and indignant now, if they saw any one jump out of a workshop into a Cathedral, and act the Doctor; and would accuse him of the utmost arrogance and folly. But the inhabitants of Nazareth were ignorant that Christ was the Son of God, who, out of His immense love, had not disdained to be born among workmen, and to act as one, that He might redeem us, and teach us humility by His example. Therefore this charity and humility of Christ, which ought to have made them admire and venerate Him, was a stumbling-block to them, because they would not believe that God would be willing to stoop so low. But Jesus said unto them , c. This is a common proverb, and generally, but not universally true; for John the Baptist, as well as Isaiah, Elias, Elisha, Daniel, Hosea, c., were held in great honour by the Jews their countrymen. Now the first cause why a prophet, that is a teacher, is frequently without honour among his own people, is what S. Jerome gives, "It is almost natural for citizens to have an invidious feeling towards their fellow citizens. For they do not consider a man's present works, but call to mind his frail infancy, as though they themselves had not arrived by the same gradations of age at mature years." Listen to S. Ambrose, ( c . 4. Luc .). "No slight envy is that which betrays itself, which forgetful of the charity belonging to citizenship, turns the causes of love into bitter hatred. This is declared both by example and the oracle, that, in vain, do you look for the assistance of heavenly mercy, if you envy the progress of another's virtue. For the Lord despises the envious, and turns away the miracles of His power from those who disparage the divine blessings in others." 2. Because too great familiarity breeds contempt as S. Chrysostom says. And Theophylact says, "We are wont to despise those things which are very common, always paying greater regard to foreign and unaccustomed things. We admire what comes from abroad; we despise what we have at home even when what we have at home is better. Thus, we turn up our nose at our own physicians, however learned they may be; and we purchase herbs and flowers brought from India, when we have the very same, or better, in our own woods. Of a truth 'novelty is charming.'" 3. Because by daily conversation with people, their faults, or natural infirmities, are readily disclosed; and this is apt to lessen our veneration for them. But it is otherwise in conversing with God, because the greater converse we have with Him, the more does it conduce to reverence. The inhabitants of Nazareth seeing Christ eat, drink, sleep, work like other men, despised Him, especially when they beheld His relations mean and poor: Nor, indeed, could they believe that He was born of a Virgin Mother, and had God for His Father. Let, therefore, a teacher and preacher avoid familiarity with men, lest he be despised; for, as S. Cyril says. "Preaching is not able to bring forth fruit where the preacher is despised." And He did not many mighty works there , c. (Arab.), on account of the paucity of their faith. This caused them to be unworthy of miracles. S. Jerome gives another reason, "That He might not condemn their unbelief by working many miracles." For he who beholds many miracles, and does not believe, sins more gravely than he who has beheld but few, and will be, therefore, more heavily condemned, and punished in hell This was the cause why Christ wrought but few miracles among the Jews, says S. Jerome, "He works greater miracles among the Gentiles, day by day, by His apostles, not so much in healing men's bodies as in saving their souls"* Footnotes
-
*
Apocalypse
14:15
And another angel came out from the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat upon the cloud: Thrust in thy sickle and reap, because the hour is come to reap. For the harvest of the earth is ripe.
* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 73, Article 1
[I, Q. 73, Art. 1]
Whether the Completion of the Divine Works Ought to Be Ascribed to the Seventh Day?
Objection 1: It would seem that the completion of the Divine works ought not to be ascribed to the seventh day. For all things that are done in this world belong to the Divine works. But the consummation of the world will be at the end of the world (Matt. 13:39, 40). Moreover, the time of Christ's Incarnation is a time of completion, wherefore it is called "the time of fulness [*Vulg.: 'the fulness of time']" (Gal. 4:4). And Christ Himself, at the moment of His death, cried out, "It is consummated" (John 19:30). Hence the completion of the Divine works does not belong to the seventh day.
Obj. 2: Further, the completion of a work is an act in itself. But we do not read that God acted at all on the seventh day, but rather that He rested from all His work. Therefore the completion of the works does not belong to the seventh day.
Obj. 3: Further, nothing is said to be complete to which many things are added, unless they are merely superfluous, for a thing is called perfect to which nothing is wanting that it ought to possess. But many things were made after the seventh day, as the production of many individual beings, and even of certain new species that are frequently appearing, especially in the case of animals generated from putrefaction. Also, God creates daily new souls. Again, the work of the Incarnation was a new work, of which it is said (Jer. 31:22): "The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth." Miracles also are new works, of which it is said (Eccles. 36:6): "Renew thy signs, and work new miracles." Moreover, all things will be made new when the Saints are glorified, according to Apoc. 21:5: "And He that sat on the throne said: Behold I make all things new." Therefore the completion of the Divine works ought not to be attributed to the seventh day.
_On the contrary,_ It is said (Gen. 2:2): "On the seventh day God ended His work which He had made."
_I answer that,_ The perfection of a thing is twofold, the first perfection and the second perfection. The _first_ perfection is that according to which a thing is substantially perfect, and this perfection is the form of the whole; which form results from the whole having its parts complete. But the _second_ perfection is the end, which is either an operation, as the end of the harpist is to play the harp; or something that is attained by an operation, as the end of the builder is the house that he makes by building. But the first perfection is the cause of the second, because the form is the principle of operation. Now the final perfection, which is the end of the whole universe, is the perfect beatitude of the Saints at the consummation of the world; and the first perfection is the completeness of the universe at its first founding, and this is what is ascribed to the seventh day.
Reply Obj. 1: The first perfection is the cause of the second, as above said. Now for the attaining of beatitude two things are required, nature and grace. Therefore, as said above, the perfection of beatitude will be at the end of the world. But this consummation existed previously in its causes, as to nature, at the first founding of the world, as to grace, in the Incarnation of Christ. For, "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). So, then, on the seventh day was the consummation of nature, in Christ's Incarnation the consummation of grace, and at the end of the world will be the consummation of glory.
Reply Obj. 2: God did act on the seventh day, not by creating new creatures, but by directing and moving His creatures to the work proper to them, and thus He made some beginning of the _second_ perfection. So that, according to our version of the Scripture, the completion of the works is attributed to the seventh day, though according to another it is assigned to the sixth. Either version, however, may stand, since the completion of the universe as to the completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion as regards their operation, to the seventh. It may also be added that in continuous movement, so long as any movement further is possible, movement cannot be called completed till it comes to rest, for rest denotes consummation of movement. Now God might have made many other creatures besides those which He made in the six days, and hence, by the fact that He ceased making them on the seventh day, He is said on that day to have consummated His work.
Reply Obj. 3: Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by God, but all things subsequently made had in a sense been made before in the work of the six days. Some things, indeed, had a previous experience materially, as the rib from the side of Adam out of which God formed Eve; whilst others existed not only in matter but also in their causes, as those individual creatures that are now generated existed in the first of their kind. Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning. Again, animals of new kinds arise occasionally from the connection of individuals belonging to different species, as the mule is the offspring of an ass and a mare; but even these existed previously in their causes, in the works of the six days. Some also existed beforehand by way of similitude, as the souls now created. And the work of the Incarnation itself was thus foreshadowed, for as we read (Phil. 2:7), The Son of God "was made in the likeness of men." And again, the glory that is spiritual was anticipated in the angels by way of similitude; and that of the body in the heaven, especially the empyrean. Hence it is written (Eccles. 1:10), "Nothing under the sun is new, for it hath already gone before, in the ages that were before us." _______________________
SECOND
* Footnotes
-
*
Wisdom
3:7
The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds.
-
*
Daniel
12:3
But they that are learned, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.
*Lapide
, they are called the righteous. These are the sons of the Heavenly Father, "which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( Joh 1:13 ). Observe: the righteous are here called seed, because although the seed which Christ sows is the Word of God, spoken as well outwardly by the lips, as inwardly in the heart by grace; nevertheless, because the fruit of this seed is the conversion of the faithful, and their justification, therefore the righteous also are called seed, i.e ., the fruit of the seed, and the harvest. But the tares , c. Gr. υίοὶ του̃ πονηρου̃, i.e ., the says of that wicked, namely the devil : thus the Syriac and Arabic. Therefore they themselves are evil, for the offspring follow their father. As the sons of God are good and divine, so are the sons of the devil wicked and diabolical. Observe: by tares and children of the wicked one, some understand heretics, because they are the most injurious kind of tares, inasmuch as they choke and destroy the faithful and faith from their foundation. So S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Augustine (4 quest. in Matth. q . 11) who, however, retracts ( l . 2 Retract. c. 27) and teaches from S. Cyprian, that tares denote all the wicked in the Church. SS. Gregory, Ambrose, and Theophylact teach the same. For all wicked persons, by their evil life, hurt the faithful and the Church, as tares injure wheat, and choke it. Falsely then from this passage ( verse 29), where Christ forbids these tares to be plucked up, and subjoins, Let both grow together , the Innovators infer that heretics are not to be punished and extirpated. For by parity of reasoning they might conclude that murderers and thieves must not be punished; for they too are tares. And I say that Christ does not here absolutely forbid these tares to be plucked up, but says that no one must attempt to root them all up together; nor at a time when they came to be distinguished from the wheat; or when there is danger of pulling up the wheat at the same time with them. But all this does not apply when anyone is a manifest heretic, especially if he teaches and infects others with his heresy. For such a one does more harm to the Church than a murderer, for the one only kills the body, but the other the soul. See 1 Cor. v. 13, Gal. v. 12, where the Apostle commands impious persons, especially false teachers, to be taken away and extirpated. Thus Origen and S. Augustine the latter indeed was at first of opinion that heretics ought not to be put to death, yea, that they ought not even to be compelled to resume the faith, which they have professed in baptism. But afterwards, which he had been taught by experience how perverse and obstinate heretics are, he changed his opinion and taught the contrary. He says, "I had not yet learnt either what great wickedness they would venture upon, if they could do it with impunity; or how much careful discipline could effect to make a change in them for the better." ( l. 2, cont. Parmen. c. 2, and 2 Retract. c. 5). The harvest , c. For then shall God by the angels reap the harvest of all men, bad as well as good; and shall sever them in the day of judgment, gathering the good into the heavenly barn, and delivering the evil to the fire of hell. Whence it follows that separation shall be effected by the ministry of the angels. Therefore it is said below, that the Son of Man shall come to judgment with the angels. And shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend ; Gr. scandals, stumbling-blocks. The wicked, whom Christ previously called tares , and children of the devil , He here calls scandals ; because they are, by their wickednesses, a cause of offence and ruin both to themselves and others. S. Chrysostom observes, that the twofold punishment of the wicked is here signified the pain of loss (in that it is said, they shall collect out of His kingdom ), because they shall be shut out of Heaven; and of sense, in that it is said, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire. S. Chrysostom adds: "See the unspeakable love of God to man! He is prompt to bless them, slow to punish. When He soweth, He soweth by Himself; but when He punishes, He punishes by others: for this latter work He sends His angels." Christ adds, in v* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 54, Article 2
[III, Q. 54, Art. 2]
Whether Christ's Body Rose Glorified?
[*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order of the introduction to the question. But it is evident from the first sentence of the body of A. 3 (A. 2 in the aforesaid editions), that the order of the Leonine edition is correct.]
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to Matt. 13:43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.
Obj. 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He Himself says in Luke 24:39: "Handle, and see." Now Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled." Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified.
Obj. 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."
_I answer that,_ Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Q. 34, A. 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply Obj. 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
Reply Obj. 2: We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (Suppl., Q. 82, A. 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection."
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power." Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food. _______________________
THIRD
*H The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in a field. Which a man having found, hid it, and for joy thereof goeth, and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Ver. 44. Like unto a treasure. This hidden treasure is the gospel of Christ, which conducts to the kingdom of heaven. Thus he who by the knowledge which the gospel affords, has found the kingdom of heaven, should purchase it at the expense of every thing most near and dear to him: he cannot pay too great a price for his purchase.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 66, Article 5
[II-II, Q. 66, Art. 5]
Whether Theft Is Always a Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that theft is not always a sin. For no sin is commanded by God, since it is written (Ecclus. 15:21): "He hath commanded no man to do wickedly." Yet we find that God commanded theft, for it is written (Ex. 12:35, 36): "And the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses [Vulg.: 'as Moses had commanded']. . . and they stripped the Egyptians." Therefore theft is not always a sin.
Obj. 2: Further, if a man finds a thing that is not his and takes it, he seems to commit a theft, for he takes another's property. Yet this seems lawful according to natural equity, as the jurists hold. [*See loc. cit. in Reply.] Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin.
Obj. 3: Further, he that takes what is his own does not seem to sin, because he does not act against justice, since he does not destroy its equality. Yet a man commits a theft even if he secretly take his own property that is detained by or in the safe-keeping of another. Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ex. 20:15): "Thou shalt not steal."
_I answer that,_ If anyone consider what is meant by theft, he will find that it is sinful on two counts. First, because of its opposition to justice, which gives to each one what is his, so that for this reason theft is contrary to justice, through being a taking of what belongs to another. Secondly, because of the guile or fraud committed by the thief, by laying hands on another's property secretly and cunningly. Wherefore it is evident that every theft is a sin.
Reply Obj. 1: It is no theft for a man to take another's property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court. Hence still less was it a theft for the Israelites to take away the spoils of the Egyptians at the command of the Lord, Who ordered this to be done on account of the ill-treatment accorded to them by the Egyptians without any cause: wherefore it is written significantly (Wis. 10:19): "The just took the spoils of the wicked."
Reply Obj. 2: With regard to treasure-trove a distinction must be made. For some there are that were never in anyone's possession, for instance precious stones and jewels, found on the seashore, and such the finder is allowed to keep [*Dig. I, viii, De divis. rerum: Inst. II, i, De rerum divis.]. The same applies to treasure hidden underground long since and belonging to no man, except that according to civil law the finder is bound to give half to the owner of the land, if the treasure trove be in the land of another person [*Inst. II, i, 39: Cod. X, xv, De Thesauris]. Hence in the parable of the Gospel (Matt. 13:44) it is said of the finder of the treasure hidden in a field that he bought the field, as though he purposed thus to acquire the right of possessing the whole treasure. On the other Land the treasure-trove may be nearly in someone's possession: and then if anyone take it with the intention, not of keeping it but of returning it to the owner who does not look upon such things as unappropriated, he is not guilty of theft. In like manner if the thing found appears to be unappropriated, and if the finder believes it to be so, although he keep it, he does not commit a theft [*Inst. II, i, 47]. In any other case the sin of theft is committed [*Dig. XLI, i, De acquirend. rerum dominio, 9: Inst. II, i, 48]: wherefore Augustine says in a homily (Serm. clxxviii; De Verb. Apost.): "If thou hast found a thing and not returned it, thou hast stolen it" (Dig. xiv, 5, can. Si quid invenisti).
Reply Obj. 3: He who by stealth takes his own property which is deposited with another man burdens the depositary, who is bound either to restitution, or to prove himself innocent. Hence he is clearly guilty of sin, and is bound to ease the depositary of his burden. On the other hand he who, by stealth, takes his own property, if this be unjustly detained by another, he sins indeed; yet not because he burdens the retainer, and so he is not bound to restitution or compensation: but he sins against general justice by disregarding the order of justice and usurping judgment concerning his own property. Hence he must make satisfaction to God and endeavor to allay whatever scandal he may have given his neighbor by acting this way. _______________________
SIXTH
*H Who when he had found one pearl of great price, went his way, and sold all that he had, and bought it.
Ver. 46. This eternal kingdom faith opens to your view, but it does not put you in possession without good works. V.
*H He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.
Ver. 52. Every scribe; i.e. master or teacher. Wi. — Because you know how invaluable is the treasure, the pearl, the kingdom, here mentioned; you, who are scribes and teachers, should cultivate it yourselves, and communicate the same blessing to others. Thus imitating a father of a family, who draws from his treasure both new and old things, and distributes them to his children, according to their several wants and necessities. This was a proverbial expression with the Jews, to signify every thing useful or necessary for the provision of a family. Jer. Aug. Chrys. Bede, and Tirinus. — Thus also a pastor of souls throws light upon the mysteries of the New Testament, by the figures of the Old, and explains the workings of grace, by the operations of nature.
* Footnotes
-
*
John
6:42
And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I came down from heaven?
*H Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
Ver. 55. Is not this the carpenter's son?[1] I find carpenter in all translations, though the Greek word signifies, in general, a workman or craftsman. The Latin is also a general word, which of itself signifies no more a carpenter than a smith. But the common belief of the faithful is, that S. Joseph was a carpenter, which may be confirmed by what Theodoret relates (l. iii. Hist. c. xviii.) of one Libanius, under Julian the apostate, who asking scornfully of a holy man, what the carpenter's son was doing at that time? the holy man made him this smart reply, that he was making a coffin for Julian; who was killed not long after. Wi. — O! how truly astonishing is the stupidity of the Nazareans! They wonder whence wisdom itself possesses wisdom, and virtue itself virtue. The reason is evident: they only considered him as the son of a carpenter. S. Jer. — Was not David the son of an husbandman, and Amos a shepherd? They should then have honoured our Lord, when they heard him speak in this manner. What wonderful mildness in Christ! Though calumniated and reviled, he still answers with the greatest humility and charity, a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. v. 57. S. Chrys. ex D. Tho. Aquin. — His brethren. These were the children of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, sister of our blessed Lady; (Mat. xxviii. 56. John xix. 25.) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour. Ch.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 174, Article 5
[II-II, Q. 174, Art. 6]
Whether There Is a Degree of Prophecy in the Blessed?
Objection 1: It would seem that there is a degree of prophecy in the blessed. For, as stated above (A. 4), Moses saw the Divine essence, and yet he is called a prophet. Therefore in like manner the blessed can be called prophets.
Obj. 2: Further, prophecy is a "divine revelation." Now divine revelations are made even to the blessed angels. Therefore even blessed angels can be prophets.
Obj. 3: Further, Christ was a comprehensor from the moment of His conception; and yet He calls Himself a prophet (Matt. 13:57), when He says: "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." Therefore even comprehensors and the blessed can be called prophets.
Obj. 4: Further, it is written of Samuel (Ecclus. 46:23): "He lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy to blot out the wickedness of the nation." Therefore other saints can likewise be called prophets after they have died.
_On the contrary,_ The prophetic word is compared (2 Pet. 1:19) to a "light that shineth in a dark place." Now there is no darkness in the blessed. Therefore they cannot be called prophets.
_I answer that,_ Prophecy denotes vision of some supernatural truth as being far remote from us. This happens in two ways. First, on the part of the knowledge itself, because, to wit, the supernatural truth is not known in itself, but in some of its effects; and this truth will be more remote if it be known by means of images of corporeal things, than if it be known in its intelligible effects; and such most of all is the prophetic vision, which is conveyed by images and likenesses of corporeal things. Secondly, vision is remote on the part of the seer, because, to wit, he has not yet attained completely to his ultimate perfection, according to 2 Cor. 5:6, "While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord."
Now in neither of these ways are the blessed remote; wherefore they cannot be called prophets.
Reply Obj. 1: This vision of Moses was interrupted after the manner of a passion, and was not permanent like the beatific vision, wherefore he was as yet a seer from afar. For this reason his vision did not entirely lose the character of prophecy.
Reply Obj. 2: The divine revelation is made to the angels, not as being far distant, but as already wholly united to God; wherefore their revelation has not the character of prophecy.
Reply Obj. 3: Christ was at the same time comprehensor and wayfarer [*Cf. III, QQ. 9, seqq.]. Consequently the notion of prophecy is not applicable to Him as a comprehensor, but only as a wayfarer.
Reply Obj. 4: Samuel had not yet attained to the state of blessedness. Wherefore although by God's will the soul itself of Samuel foretold to Saul the issue of the war as revealed to him by God, this pertains to the nature of prophecy. It is not the same with the saints who are now in heaven. Nor does it make any difference that this is stated to have been brought about by the demons' art, because although the demons are unable to evoke the soul of a saint, or to force it to do any particular thing, this can be done by the power of God, so that when the demon is consulted, God Himself declares the truth by His messenger: even as He gave a true answer by Elias to the King's messengers who were sent to consult the god of Accaron (4 Kings 1).
It might also be replied [*The Book of Ecclesiasticus was not as yet declared by the Church to be Canonical Scripture; Cf. I, Q. 89, A. 8, ad 2] that it was not the soul of Samuel, but a demon impersonating him; and that the wise man calls him Samuel, and describes his prediction as prophetic, in accordance with the thoughts of Saul and the bystanders who were of this opinion. _______________________
SIXTH
*S Part 4, Ques 7, Article 8
[III, Q. 7, Art. 8]
Whether in Christ There Was the Gift of Prophecy?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of prophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect knowledge, according to Num. 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream." But Christ had full and unveiled knowledge, much more than Moses, of whom it is subjoined that "plainly and not by riddles and figures doth he see God" (Num. 6:8). Therefore we ought not to admit prophecy in Christ.
Obj. 2: Further, as faith has to do with what is not seen, and hope with what is not possessed, so prophecy has to do with what is not present, but distant; for a prophet means, as it were, a teller of far-off things. But in Christ there could be neither faith nor hope, as was said above (AA. 3, 4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be admitted in Christ.
Obj. 3: Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel; hence Moses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above (II-II, Q. 174, A. 4) is said (Acts 7:38) to have spoken with an angel in the desert. But Christ was "made lower than the angels," not as to the knowledge of His soul, but only as regards the sufferings of His body, as is shown Heb. 2:9. Therefore it seems that Christ was not a prophet.
_On the contrary,_ It is written of Him (Deut. 18:15): "Thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren," and He says of Himself (Matt. 13:57; John 4:44): "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country."
_I answer that,_ A prophet means, as it were, a teller or seer of far-off things, inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are far from men's senses, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi, 18). Now we must bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for knowing and announcing what is distant from others, with whom he is not. And this is clear in regard to place and time. For if anyone living in France were to know and announce to others living in France what things were transpiring in Syria, it would be prophetical, as Eliseus told Giezi (4 Kings 5:26) how the man had leaped down from his chariot to meet him. But if anyone living in Syria were to announce what things were there, it would not be prophetical. And the same appears in regard to time. For it was prophetical of Isaias to announce that Cyrus, King of the Persians, would rebuild the temple of God, as is clear from Isa. 44:28. But it was not prophetical of Esdras to write it, in whose time it took place. Hence if God or angels, or even the blessed, know and announce what is beyond our knowing, this does not pertain to prophecy, since they nowise touch our state. Now Christ before His passion touched our state, inasmuch as He was not merely a "comprehensor," but a "wayfarer." Hence it was prophetical in Him to know and announce what was beyond the knowledge of other "wayfarers": and for this reason He is called a prophet.
Reply Obj. 1: These words do not prove that enigmatical knowledge, viz. by dream and vision, belongs to the nature of prophecy; but the comparison is drawn between other prophets, who saw Divine things in dreams and visions, and Moses, who saw God plainly and not by riddles, and who yet is called a prophet, according to Deut. 24:10: "And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses." Nevertheless it may be said that although Christ had full and unveiled knowledge as regards the intellective part, yet in the imaginative part He had certain similitudes, in which Divine things could be viewed, inasmuch as He was not only a "comprehensor," but a "wayfarer."
Reply Obj. 2: Faith regards such things as are unseen by him who believes; and hope, too, is of such things as are not possessed by the one who hopes; but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the sense of men, with whom the prophet dwells and converses in this state of life. And hence faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of Christ's beatitude; but prophecy is not.
Reply Obj. 3: Angels, being "comprehensors," are above prophets, who are merely "wayfarers"; but not above Christ, Who was both a "comprehensor" and a "wayfarer." _______________________
NINTH
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 178, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 178, Art. 1]
Whether There Is a Gratuitous Grace of Working Miracles?
Objection 1: It would seem that no gratuitous grace is directed to the working of miracles. For every grace puts something in the one to whom it is given (Cf. I-II, Q. 90, A. 1). Now the working of miracles puts nothing in the soul of the man who receives it since miracles are wrought at the touch even of a dead body. Thus we read (4 Kings 13:21) that "some . . . cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet." Therefore the working of miracles does not belong to a gratuitous grace.
Obj. 2: Further, the gratuitous graces are from the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 12:4, "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Now the working of miracles is effected even by the unclean spirit, according to Matt. 24:24, "There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders." Therefore it would seem that the working of miracles does not belong to a gratuitous grace.
Obj. 3: Further, miracles are divided into "signs," "wonders" or "portents," and "virtues." [*Cf. 2 Thess. 2:9, where the Douay version renders _virtus_ by "power." The use of the word "virtue" in the sense of a miracle is now obsolete, and the generic term "miracle" is elsewhere used in its stead: Cf. 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; Heb. 2:4; Acts 2:22]. Therefore it is unreasonable to reckon the "working of miracles" a gratuitous grace, any more than the "working of signs" and "wonders."
Obj. 4: Further, the miraculous restoring to health is done by the power of God. Therefore the grace of healing should not be distinguished from the working of miracles.
Obj. 5: Further, the working of miracles results from faith--either of the worker, according to 1 Cor. 13:2, "If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains," or of other persons for whose sake miracles are wrought, according to Matt. 13:58, "And He wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief." Therefore, if faith be reckoned a gratuitous grace, it is superfluous to reckon in addition the working of signs as another gratuitous grace.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle (1 Cor. 12:9, 10) says that among other gratuitous graces, "to another" is given "the grace of healing . . . to another, the working of miracles."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 177, A. 1), the Holy Ghost provides sufficiently for the Church in matters profitable unto salvation, to which purpose the gratuitous graces are directed. Now just as the knowledge which a man receives from God needs to be brought to the knowledge of others through the gift of tongues and the grace of the word, so too the word uttered needs to be confirmed in order that it be rendered credible. This is done by the working of miracles, according to Mk. 16:20, "And confirming the word with signs that followed": and reasonably so. For it is natural to man to arrive at the intelligible truth through its sensible effects. Wherefore just as man led by his natural reason is able to arrive at some knowledge of God through His natural effects, so is he brought to a certain degree of supernatural knowledge of the objects of faith by certain supernatural effects which are called miracles. Therefore the working of miracles belongs to a gratuitous grace.
Reply Obj. 1: Just as prophecy extends to whatever can be known supernaturally, so the working of miracles extends to all things that can be done supernaturally; the cause whereof is the divine omnipotence which cannot be communicated to any creature. Hence it is impossible for the principle of working miracles to be a quality abiding as a habit in the soul. On the other hand, just as the prophet's mind is moved by divine inspiration to know something supernaturally, so too is it possible for the mind of the miracle worker to be moved to do something resulting in the miraculous effect which God causes by His power. Sometimes this takes place after prayer, as when Peter raised to life the dead Tabitha (Acts 9:40): sometimes without any previous prayer being expressed, as when Peter by upbraiding the lying Ananias and Saphira delivered them to death (Acts 5:4, 9). Hence Gregory says (Dial. ii, 30) that "the saints work miracles, sometimes by authority, sometimes by prayer." In either case, however, God is the principal worker, for He uses instrumentally either man's inward movement, or his speech, or some outward action, or again the bodily contact of even a dead body. Thus when Josue had said as though authoritatively (Josh. 10:12): "Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon," it is said afterwards (Josh. 10:14): "There was not before or after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man."
Reply Obj. 2: Our Lord is speaking there of the miracles to be wrought at the time of Antichrist, of which the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:9) that the coming of Antichrist will be "according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders." To quote the words of Augustine (De Civ. Dei xx, 19), "it is a matter of debate whether they are called signs and lying wonders, because he will deceive the senses of mortals by imaginary visions, in that he will seem to do what he does not, or because, though they be real wonders, they will seduce into falsehood them that believe." They are said to be real, because the things themselves will be real, just as Pharaoh's magicians made real frogs and real serpents; but they will not be real miracles, because they will be done by the power of natural causes, as stated in the First Part (Q. 114, A. 4); whereas the working of miracles which is ascribed to a gratuitous grace, is done by God's power for man's profit.
Reply Obj. 3: Two things may be considered in miracles. One is that which is done: this is something surpassing the faculty of nature, and in this respect miracles are called "virtues." The other thing is the purpose for which miracles are wrought, namely the manifestation of something supernatural, and in this respect they are commonly called "signs": but on account of some excellence they receive the name of "wonder" or "prodigy," as showing something from afar (_procul_).
Reply Obj. 4: The "grace of healing" is mentioned separately, because by its means a benefit, namely bodily health, is conferred on man in addition to the common benefit bestowed in all miracles, namely the bringing of men to the knowledge of God.
Reply Obj. 5: The working of miracles is ascribed to faith for two reasons. First, because it is directed to the confirmation of faith, secondly, because it proceeds from God's omnipotence on which faith relies. Nevertheless, just as besides the grace of faith, the grace of the word is necessary that people may be instructed in the faith, so too is the grace of miracles necessary that people may be confirmed in their faith. _______________________
SECOND